You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@velocity.apache.org by steve <st...@keptprivate.com> on 2001/05/20 18:29:52 UTC
Velocity and Avalon
Hi,
I'm trying to use Avalon with Velocity and I've
run into a version conflict in the logger.
I have Avalon 4.0b1 ...
I see that Velocity uses the Avalon logger by
default and I haven't changed that, but it looks
like it must be an older version. Can I simply
replace the logger in Velocity with the newer
version? ...any other tips?
Thanks,
Steve
PS: I had sent a "newbie" question out last week
about suggestions on the best way to integrate
a DB component into a Velocity servlet. I looked
at Turbine but in the end decided that it didn't
really suit my needs. I did discover that Avalon
would provide me with some very useful
components. Thanks to all who responded.
Re: Velocity and Avalon
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 5/21/01 7:10 PM, "Peter Donald" <do...@apache.org> wrote:
> At 11:21 AM 5/21/01 -0700, Jon Stevens wrote:
>> on 5/20/01 11:34 PM, "Peter Donald" <do...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a prime example of someone using an alpha product whichs explicitly
>>> stated "the developer team is not investing _any_ effort in providing back
>>> compatibility between alpha releases".
>>
>> Peter, I was simply showing the importance of backwards compatibility so
>> that people can see more examples of why stuff breaks and how.
>
> don't be silly - thats not what you were doing.
I love it how you tell me what I'm doing.
> You are aware that velocity used an unreleased alpha product. You are aware
> that the proposed deprecation policy has nothing to do with alpha or
> unreleased products. Thus you are quite aware that the deprecation policy
> and this situation have nothing to do with each other.
>
> You cross posted to ant-dev which seems odd if your real motivation was
> "simply showing the importance of backwards compatibility". Combine this
> with the FUD you were spreading a bit back and things become a little clearer.
>
> The first rule of FUD is misdirection, second is to cause confusion by
> relating negative connotations with a item where there is in fact no
> relation. This is what I assume your intention was.
>
> Sure I could be wrong - you *may* have had good intentions and *may* have
> made a mistake. But like you said you are intelligent and I don't believe
> in cooincidence.
Uh. Ok Peter...keep on going with whatever you feel is reality.
-jon
Re: Velocity and Avalon
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 5/21/01 7:10 PM, "Peter Donald" <do...@apache.org> wrote:
> At 11:21 AM 5/21/01 -0700, Jon Stevens wrote:
>> on 5/20/01 11:34 PM, "Peter Donald" <do...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a prime example of someone using an alpha product whichs explicitly
>>> stated "the developer team is not investing _any_ effort in providing back
>>> compatibility between alpha releases".
>>
>> Peter, I was simply showing the importance of backwards compatibility so
>> that people can see more examples of why stuff breaks and how.
>
> don't be silly - thats not what you were doing.
I love it how you tell me what I'm doing.
> You are aware that velocity used an unreleased alpha product. You are aware
> that the proposed deprecation policy has nothing to do with alpha or
> unreleased products. Thus you are quite aware that the deprecation policy
> and this situation have nothing to do with each other.
>
> You cross posted to ant-dev which seems odd if your real motivation was
> "simply showing the importance of backwards compatibility". Combine this
> with the FUD you were spreading a bit back and things become a little clearer.
>
> The first rule of FUD is misdirection, second is to cause confusion by
> relating negative connotations with a item where there is in fact no
> relation. This is what I assume your intention was.
>
> Sure I could be wrong - you *may* have had good intentions and *may* have
> made a mistake. But like you said you are intelligent and I don't believe
> in cooincidence.
Uh. Ok Peter...keep on going with whatever you feel is reality.
-jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Velocity and Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
At 11:21 AM 5/21/01 -0700, Jon Stevens wrote:
>on 5/20/01 11:34 PM, "Peter Donald" <do...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Here is a prime example of someone using an alpha product whichs explicitly
>> stated "the developer team is not investing _any_ effort in providing back
>> compatibility between alpha releases".
>
>Peter, I was simply showing the importance of backwards compatibility so
>that people can see more examples of why stuff breaks and how.
don't be silly - thats not what you were doing.
>> And when it changes they are ...
>> what ... shocked? If they are, then they shows a decided lack of
>> intelligence.
>
>So, now you are calling me stupid?
actually quite the opposite.
>You clearly need to calm down a bit because your reply is completely off
>base.
Is it really?
Let me explain how I see it.
You are aware that velocity used an unreleased alpha product. You are aware
that the proposed deprecation policy has nothing to do with alpha or
unreleased products. Thus you are quite aware that the deprecation policy
and this situation have nothing to do with each other.
You cross posted to ant-dev which seems odd if your real motivation was
"simply showing the importance of backwards compatibility". Combine this
with the FUD you were spreading a bit back and things become a little clearer.
The first rule of FUD is misdirection, second is to cause confusion by
relating negative connotations with a item where there is in fact no
relation. This is what I assume your intention was.
Sure I could be wrong - you *may* have had good intentions and *may* have
made a mistake. But like you said you are intelligent and I don't believe
in cooincidence.
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Velocity and Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
At 11:21 AM 5/21/01 -0700, Jon Stevens wrote:
>on 5/20/01 11:34 PM, "Peter Donald" <do...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Here is a prime example of someone using an alpha product whichs explicitly
>> stated "the developer team is not investing _any_ effort in providing back
>> compatibility between alpha releases".
>
>Peter, I was simply showing the importance of backwards compatibility so
>that people can see more examples of why stuff breaks and how.
don't be silly - thats not what you were doing.
>> And when it changes they are ...
>> what ... shocked? If they are, then they shows a decided lack of
>> intelligence.
>
>So, now you are calling me stupid?
actually quite the opposite.
>You clearly need to calm down a bit because your reply is completely off
>base.
Is it really?
Let me explain how I see it.
You are aware that velocity used an unreleased alpha product. You are aware
that the proposed deprecation policy has nothing to do with alpha or
unreleased products. Thus you are quite aware that the deprecation policy
and this situation have nothing to do with each other.
You cross posted to ant-dev which seems odd if your real motivation was
"simply showing the importance of backwards compatibility". Combine this
with the FUD you were spreading a bit back and things become a little clearer.
The first rule of FUD is misdirection, second is to cause confusion by
relating negative connotations with a item where there is in fact no
relation. This is what I assume your intention was.
Sure I could be wrong - you *may* have had good intentions and *may* have
made a mistake. But like you said you are intelligent and I don't believe
in cooincidence.
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
Re: FW: Velocity and Avalon
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
>
> Here is a prime example of someone using an alpha product whichs explicitly
> stated "the developer team is not investing _any_ effort in providing back
> compatibility between alpha releases". And when it changes they are ...
> what ... shocked? If they are, then they shows a decided lack of
> intelligence.
Peter, you could have left off the last sentence, it is only inflamatory.
However, Velocity gambled on the API, it changed from its Alpha form
to its Beta form. The Beta API is the stable API, and deprection will
be used from that point.
>
> At 12:19 PM 5/20/01 -0700, Jon Stevens wrote:
> >Here is a prime example of why deprecation is important.
> >
> >-jon
> >
> >------ Forwarded Message
> >From: steve <st...@keptprivate.com>
> >Reply-To: velocity-user@jakarta.apache.org
> >Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 12:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
> >To: velocity-user@jakarta.apache.org
> >Subject: Velocity and Avalon
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'm trying to use Avalon with Velocity and I've
> >run into a version conflict in the logger.
> >
> >I have Avalon 4.0b1 ...
> >
> >I see that Velocity uses the Avalon logger by
> >default and I haven't changed that, but it looks
> >like it must be an older version. Can I simply
> >replace the logger in Velocity with the newer
> >version? ...any other tips?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >PS: I had sent a "newbie" question out last week
> >about suggestions on the best way to integrate
> >a DB component into a Velocity servlet. I looked
> >at Turbine but in the end decided that it didn't
> >really suit my needs. I did discover that Avalon
> >would provide me with some very useful
> >components. Thanks to all who responded.
> >
> >
> >------ End of Forwarded Message
> >
> >
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
> *-----------------------------------------------------*
> | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
> | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
> | everyone gets busy on the proof." |
> | - John Kenneth Galbraith |
> *-----------------------------------------------------*
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Velocity and Avalon
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 5/20/01 11:34 PM, "Peter Donald" <do...@apache.org> wrote:
> Here is a prime example of someone using an alpha product whichs explicitly
> stated "the developer team is not investing _any_ effort in providing back
> compatibility between alpha releases".
Peter, I was simply showing the importance of backwards compatibility so
that people can see more examples of why stuff breaks and how.
> And when it changes they are ...
> what ... shocked? If they are, then they shows a decided lack of
> intelligence.
So, now you are calling me stupid?
You clearly need to calm down a bit because your reply is completely off
base.
-jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Velocity and Avalon
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 5/20/01 11:34 PM, "Peter Donald" <do...@apache.org> wrote:
> Here is a prime example of someone using an alpha product whichs explicitly
> stated "the developer team is not investing _any_ effort in providing back
> compatibility between alpha releases".
Peter, I was simply showing the importance of backwards compatibility so
that people can see more examples of why stuff breaks and how.
> And when it changes they are ...
> what ... shocked? If they are, then they shows a decided lack of
> intelligence.
So, now you are calling me stupid?
You clearly need to calm down a bit because your reply is completely off
base.
-jon
Re: FW: Velocity and Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
Here is a prime example of someone using an alpha product whichs explicitly
stated "the developer team is not investing _any_ effort in providing back
compatibility between alpha releases". And when it changes they are ...
what ... shocked? If they are, then they shows a decided lack of
intelligence.
At 12:19 PM 5/20/01 -0700, Jon Stevens wrote:
>Here is a prime example of why deprecation is important.
>
>-jon
>
>------ Forwarded Message
>From: steve <st...@keptprivate.com>
>Reply-To: velocity-user@jakarta.apache.org
>Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 12:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
>To: velocity-user@jakarta.apache.org
>Subject: Velocity and Avalon
>
>Hi,
>
>I'm trying to use Avalon with Velocity and I've
>run into a version conflict in the logger.
>
>I have Avalon 4.0b1 ...
>
>I see that Velocity uses the Avalon logger by
>default and I haven't changed that, but it looks
>like it must be an older version. Can I simply
>replace the logger in Velocity with the newer
>version? ...any other tips?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Steve
>
>PS: I had sent a "newbie" question out last week
>about suggestions on the best way to integrate
>a DB component into a Velocity servlet. I looked
>at Turbine but in the end decided that it didn't
>really suit my needs. I did discover that Avalon
>would provide me with some very useful
>components. Thanks to all who responded.
>
>
>------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
Re: Velocity and Avalon
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>.
steve wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to use Avalon with Velocity and I've
> run into a version conflict in the logger.
>
> I have Avalon 4.0b1 ...
>
> I see that Velocity uses the Avalon logger by
> default and I haven't changed that, but it looks
> like it must be an older version. Can I simply
> replace the logger in Velocity with the newer
> version? ...any other tips?
Actually update to the latest 1.1 CVS tree (take the nightly snapshot)
and all will be fine. The 1.1 release will come out today (if I can
knock off this last bit) so you aren't out on a limb :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
> PS: I had sent a "newbie" question out last week
> about suggestions on the best way to integrate
> a DB component into a Velocity servlet. I looked
> at Turbine but in the end decided that it didn't
> really suit my needs. I did discover that Avalon
> would provide me with some very useful
> components. Thanks to all who responded.
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. geirm@optonline.net
System and Software Consulting
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
"still climbing up to the shoulders..."
Re: FW: Velocity and Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
Here is a prime example of someone using an alpha product whichs explicitly
stated "the developer team is not investing _any_ effort in providing back
compatibility between alpha releases". And when it changes they are ...
what ... shocked? If they are, then they shows a decided lack of
intelligence.
At 12:19 PM 5/20/01 -0700, Jon Stevens wrote:
>Here is a prime example of why deprecation is important.
>
>-jon
>
>------ Forwarded Message
>From: steve <st...@keptprivate.com>
>Reply-To: velocity-user@jakarta.apache.org
>Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 12:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
>To: velocity-user@jakarta.apache.org
>Subject: Velocity and Avalon
>
>Hi,
>
>I'm trying to use Avalon with Velocity and I've
>run into a version conflict in the logger.
>
>I have Avalon 4.0b1 ...
>
>I see that Velocity uses the Avalon logger by
>default and I haven't changed that, but it looks
>like it must be an older version. Can I simply
>replace the logger in Velocity with the newer
>version? ...any other tips?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Steve
>
>PS: I had sent a "newbie" question out last week
>about suggestions on the best way to integrate
>a DB component into a Velocity servlet. I looked
>at Turbine but in the end decided that it didn't
>really suit my needs. I did discover that Avalon
>would provide me with some very useful
>components. Thanks to all who responded.
>
>
>------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
FW: Velocity and Avalon
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
Here is a prime example of why deprecation is important.
-jon
------ Forwarded Message
From: steve <st...@keptprivate.com>
Reply-To: velocity-user@jakarta.apache.org
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 12:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
To: velocity-user@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Velocity and Avalon
Hi,
I'm trying to use Avalon with Velocity and I've
run into a version conflict in the logger.
I have Avalon 4.0b1 ...
I see that Velocity uses the Avalon logger by
default and I haven't changed that, but it looks
like it must be an older version. Can I simply
replace the logger in Velocity with the newer
version? ...any other tips?
Thanks,
Steve
PS: I had sent a "newbie" question out last week
about suggestions on the best way to integrate
a DB component into a Velocity servlet. I looked
at Turbine but in the end decided that it didn't
really suit my needs. I did discover that Avalon
would provide me with some very useful
components. Thanks to all who responded.
------ End of Forwarded Message
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Velocity and Avalon
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 5/20/01 9:29 AM, "steve" <st...@keptprivate.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to use Avalon with Velocity and I've
> run into a version conflict in the logger.
>
> I have Avalon 4.0b1 ...
>
> I see that Velocity uses the Avalon logger by
> default and I haven't changed that, but it looks
> like it must be an older version. Can I simply
> replace the logger in Velocity with the newer
> version? ...any other tips?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
In the velocity.properties file, configure things to use Log4J instead.
-jon
--
If you come from a Perl or PHP background, JSP is a way to take
your pain to new levels. --Anonymous
<http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/ymtd/ymtd.html>
FW: Velocity and Avalon
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
Here is a prime example of why deprecation is important.
-jon
------ Forwarded Message
From: steve <st...@keptprivate.com>
Reply-To: velocity-user@jakarta.apache.org
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 12:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
To: velocity-user@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Velocity and Avalon
Hi,
I'm trying to use Avalon with Velocity and I've
run into a version conflict in the logger.
I have Avalon 4.0b1 ...
I see that Velocity uses the Avalon logger by
default and I haven't changed that, but it looks
like it must be an older version. Can I simply
replace the logger in Velocity with the newer
version? ...any other tips?
Thanks,
Steve
PS: I had sent a "newbie" question out last week
about suggestions on the best way to integrate
a DB component into a Velocity servlet. I looked
at Turbine but in the end decided that it didn't
really suit my needs. I did discover that Avalon
would provide me with some very useful
components. Thanks to all who responded.
------ End of Forwarded Message