ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jon Stevens <>
Subject Re: [Vote] Logging
Date Wed, 09 May 2001 06:55:07 GMT
on 5/8/01 11:44 PM, "Peter Donald" <> wrote:

> At 11:12  8/5/01 -0700, Jon Stevens wrote:
>> on 5/8/01 8:04 PM, "Peter Donald" <> wrote:
>>> turbine has more lines of code than logkits core, is a custom system, has
>>> not had anywhere near the same level of testing as either log4j or logkit.
>>> You just reinvent a new logging toolkit inside turbine - sounds smart.
>> Peter, now you are making shit up. Go look at the code.
> I did looked at last CVS version I had (mid April mod date) ...
> and I did a line count for logging service vs logkit ...
> Turbine: 5683
> LogKit: 2649 

Peter, why are you comparing Turbine to LogKit? You are making absolutely no

> riiiiight. You are a bundle of logic aren't you - ask Ceki which he thinks
> has been more stable over lifetime - should be interesting to see what he
> saids - no?

Ask him.

> Like logkit JDOM is a part that is unlikely to have pluggable
> implementations - analogous to the Logging JSR and LogKit... like the vast
> majority of jdk really. But then again everyone else did it wrong - only
> you know the "one true way" right ?

Peter that is utter bullshit and you know it. Why the heck do you think that
people are asking for the ability to plug logging systems? Why are you
completely ignoring that fact?

Logging != JDOM

> I will do it if you will. Then again I don't really expect you to believe
> in your own "logic" so I guess it is a safe bet for me.

Peter. I want pluggable logging systems and I want Ant to support that. I'm
strongly -1 on your proposal. End of discussion, it isn't going further.


View raw message