<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I agree with Ari.<br>
There is some unwritten rule among software developers, that "0.9.x"
version means "almost final, almost ready for production", some kind
of Release Candidate (but you may still expect some incompatible
API changes before 1.0). You don't have to follow this rule, but
it's common sense.<br>
Numbering scheme has some more sense than marketing - at least it
should have. You see the results of idiotic versioning marketing on
the example of Java itself - there were Java versions 1.0 -> 1.1
-> then "Java 2", which should rather be 2.0, but it was 1.2
-> 1.3 - 1.4 -> 5.0 (because Sun marketing decided that it is
logical to drop "1." and name version 1.5.0 as version "5.0", at the
same time leaving 1.5.0 as technical number - we all know how much
confusion it introduced). So version numbers should carry some
message. Otherwise we cuould just use meaningless hash numbers, or a
sequence of successive integers.<br>
To sum it up: Logback version number looks suspicious probably to
more people than Ari itself. If it is so, then at least there should
be some "official" explanation somewhere on Logback home page why
such number was chosen and what's its meaning. As Ari said, there
are some projects with very strict dependency guidelines, which can
prevent any pre-1.0 libraries to be used, based only on version
number.<br>
Greg<br>
<br>
<br>
W dniu 2010-09-05 09:33, Ari Meyer pisze:
<blockquote cite="mid:4C8347C3.2020906@gmail.com" type="cite">Jeff,
<br>
<br>
I am not trying to argue with you. Please re-read what I wrote.
I am simpy saying that many organizations will not allow, except
for very special circumstances, software components that are in
alpha/beta stages of development (or appear to be so, as is the
case with sub-1.0 releases) to be deployed to their servers. If
some mission-critical software has dependencies on pre-1.0
releases, that cannot be avoided. But I cannot justify to my
management the use of a pre-1.0 logback when log4j/SLF4J is still
sufficient for most purposes. This has nothing to do with
marketing nor what I personally value. And yes, of course I know
who Ceki is and respect all that he has done, and I have used (and
made small contributions to) log4j and SLF4J since their early
releases.
<br>
<br>
Again, thanks to Ceki and all contributors,
<br>
Ari
<br>
<br>
Jeff Jensen wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
I may be right? Just look at the Logback home page and see a
few projects using it, e.g. SpringSource's dm Server.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
You place too much value in a marketing thing -- a release
number!
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
You are also confusing authors of work -- I am a fan and user of
SLF4J and Logback. All credit goes to Ceki and associates.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
For stability concerns, you should review the Logback history
with its genesis from Log4j. You do know Ceki, the Logback
founder, is also the founder of Log4j?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
'nuff said...
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*From:* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:logback-user-bounces@qos.ch">logback-user-bounces@qos.ch</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:logback-user-bounces@qos.ch">mailto:logback-user-bounces@qos.ch</a>] *On Behalf Of *Ari Meyer
<br>
*Sent:* Saturday, September 04, 2010 8:26 PM
<br>
*To:* logback users list
<br>
*Subject:* Re: [logback-user] 1.0 release date?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi Jeff,
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
You may be right about that (though I haven't seen it pulled
down as a dependency for my Maven builds, yet...), but large
organizations often don't see things the way you and I do. They
won't ditch an acceptable, stable log4j for what *appears* to be
a beta. After over 4 years of active development, though, it
seems reasonable to expect multiple full releases of something
as relatively small in scope as a logging framework. The fact
that we don't see a 1.0 yet perhaps indicates
over-perfectionism. This often happens with other OSS projects
(JDOM being a notable case of this, as I remember). For our
sake, please just get to a reasonably stable build and label it
"1.0". We'll expect bug fixes and minor API changes, of course,
as that's natural, and new features can be released
incrementally.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Are there some must-have features that have yet to be
implemented? It would be nice if the FAQ were updated for this,
along with a high-level road map.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks for all for the hard work!
<br>
Ari
<br>
<br>
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Jeff Jensen
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jjensen@apache.org">jjensen@apache.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jjensen@apache.org"><mailto:jjensen@apache.org></a>>
wrote:
<br>
<br>
Just because the release number begins with a value < 1
doesn't mean it is
<br>
in beta. Lots and lots of products around the world use SLF4J
and Logback
<br>
in production operations, and I bet including some of the FOS
frameworks you
<br>
are using!
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----
<br>
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:logback-user-bounces@qos.ch">logback-user-bounces@qos.ch</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:logback-user-bounces@qos.ch"><mailto:logback-user-bounces@qos.ch></a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:logback-user-bounces@qos.ch">mailto:logback-user-bounces@qos.ch</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:logback-user-bounces@qos.ch"><mailto:logback-user-bounces@qos.ch></a>] On
<br>
Behalf Of Ari Meyer
<br>
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 8:09 AM
<br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:logback-user@qos.ch">logback-user@qos.ch</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:logback-user@qos.ch"><mailto:logback-user@qos.ch></a>
<br>
Subject: [logback-user] 1.0 release date?
<br>
<br>
Hi,
<br>
<br>
We'd like to switch from log4j to logback, but can't use beta
releases.
<br>
logback has been in development for over 4 years now -- any idea
when
<br>
we'll see a 1.0 release?
<br>
<br>
Thanks,
<br>
Ari
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Logback-user mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Logback-user@qos.ch">Logback-user@qos.ch</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Logback-user@qos.ch"><mailto:Logback-user@qos.ch></a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user">http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user</a>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Logback-user mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Logback-user@qos.ch">Logback-user@qos.ch</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Logback-user@qos.ch"><mailto:Logback-user@qos.ch></a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user">http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Logback-user mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Logback-user@qos.ch">Logback-user@qos.ch</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user">http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Logback-user@qos.ch">Logback-user@qos.ch</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user">http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>