logging-log4j-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Smith <Paul.Sm...@lawlex.com.au>
Subject RE: An odd configuration need...
Date Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:59:52 GMT
> The reason that my company won't use alpha code but will 
> write on top of
> released code is that we contain the scope of our risk.  If I 
> just write
> one class and everything else is stable and trusted then our risk is
> much lower than using an unstable release where our developers would
> have to be responsible for understanding (and potentially 
> maintaining) a
> whole extra tree of code.  That may be fine for internal 
> projects where
> crashes, and data losses might be more acceptable, but I wouldn't want
> my paycheck riding on it.
>

All valid points.  I used to be of the same mind, until I realised that when
you have complete access to the source, you can somewhat minimise that risk,
but I agree that is not for everyone.
 
> Whenever I use Log4J, it could be said that I'm potentially 
> introducing
> bugs.  

Actually, whenever you use Microsoft products, or even a Database server you
put portions of your risk in someone elses hands, production or not, but you
are right, in that it is a risk management thinking process.

>So I look at writing an extra class as just more of that risk.
> But much as I love the tool, I wouldn't put an alpha release in
> production unless I was part of the log4j development team.  
> And that's
> not because I think I'm a particularly good developer, but 
> just because
> I know I'd be able to debug any issues quickly if I was 
> working with it
> regularly and I'd have a clear perception of the state of the code.
>

Yes, that could be why I feel the current 1.3 state feels ok to use.  

Paul

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org


Mime
View raw message