Re: Getting Velocity to shut up. ;)

[Jonathan Revusky <jo...@revusky.com>]

Mike Curwen wrote:
> I agree with Will.  Some of the "INFO" messages are inappropriate.
<snip>
> You're echoing back a setting in a file (or defaults).  This is DEBUG.
> Only when I encounter quirky or odd behaviour would I up the log4j
> settings to DEBUG, and at that time I want to see this info. Otherwise,
> I assume its all good. When my servlet container starts up, I don't
> expect all my settings in web.xml to be echoed back to me at an INFO
> level. I don't need to see my own settings echoed back. Yes, the
> solution is obvious.  Use WARN and above for everyday use.  My point is:
> It is unnecessarily verbose by default.
>  
> I'd be obliged as well, if Will would post his code. But of course, he's
> under no obligation to do so. 
> 
> End of response proper. 
> 
> What appears below is the result of reading this thread last, after all
> the other flame-like ones that have been going on.   

Mike, the above line really made me laugh! You actually just admitted 
that you read all the flamey threads first (I presume because they're 
more fun to read...)

<ROTFL>

> Just ignore
> everything from now on if you don't want to hear about it!  

Well, nobody reads (or admits to reading) the National Enquirer or the 
Sun or other tabloids. (Amazing that they're still in business!) So 
surely nobody will read beyond this point... ;-)

> I know I'll
> be ignoring any replies to it. 

Yeah, I believe this.

(Not.)

<ROTFL>

> And just so I'm clear... that means any
> sentence that ends with a '?' below is being rhetorical. I do not invite
> a reply. Immature as that might be, I'm just getting something off my
> chest.

You're a funny guy, Mike! :-)

> 
> 
> 
> ************************************************************************
> Well I'm sorry to have wasted the list's time with such a picky request.
> Especially how it's open source, of course I should have just cracked
> open the source and fixed it myself. 
>  
> 
> Note to Jonathan:  Did you set out to make an annoying response, or was
> that merely a side effect?  In other posts you've made clear your
> preference for people being exact when speaking of your replies.  I'll
> try to do that:
> 
> While reading all this, remember that it is a gestalt thing, and not any
> one thing in particular. It was "all together" a reply that really
> pissed me off and made me think you were a git, deliberate in this
> instance or not.
> 
> 
>>Meanwhile, this really is such a non-issue. 
> 
> 
> Your use of the word 'such' translates this otherwise truthful statement
> into:
> "It's  **SUCH** a non-issue <eye-roll>. If I have to hand-hold one more
> open source newbie, I'll scream."   
> 
> Your real message that "it's open source, just bring the smackdown in
> the form of a leading double slash" while not lost, was I dunno..
> outweighed by the surrounding noise. It honestly just makes me want to
> ignore anything you have to say, whether on the mark, or not.

Mike, we're adults here, right? I'll be totally straight-up with you.

If I belonged to the Serge Knystautas or Henning P. Schmiedehausen 
school of discourse, I would immediately play the innocent. "I'm a 
really nice guy and you just misunderstood me."

That's what the guys here do when they play these little 
passive-aggressive sniping games. You call them on it and they play the 
innocent: "Oh, you misunderstood me." i.e. "You're paranoid to think I 
was taking pot-shots at you."

I'm not like those dishonest phonies. I'm a different species. Watch how 
I respond:

You are completely right. I was making fun of the whole thing. The 
logging thread did strike me as ludicrous. That was the subtext, you 
perceived it, and you were right.

It still strikes me as absurd. It's like you go to a place that 
announces free beer and, amazingly enough, they really have free beer. 
They have a table with a lot of bottles (full of beer) and empty 
glasses. You wait expectantly. You see, someone has to pour the beer 
into the glass for you. ("This is a full-service joint, damn it!")

A waiter shows up and pours the beer into the glass for you. You then 
complain that the he put too much (or too little) foam on top.

Well, of course, if you don't like how he poured the beer, you can pour 
your own glass of beer...

I mean, that is honestly how it strikes me. That was the subtext, and 
you correctly perceived it.

Now, okay, I'm sorry if that really offends you so much. Really, I am. 
Maybe I was being a bit of a prick.

But really, Mike, this is very very mild stuff. I mean, if you really 
want to be involved in OSS communities, I don't think you can manage 
with such a thin skin. I mean, my comments were really quite mild.

> 
> 
>>Or, IOW, if one is going to be picky at this level 
> 
> 
> 'picky'.  Hmm.  Makes me feel real good for having dared to ask the
> question. I guess my concerns must really be very minor. Shame on me.
> 
> 
>>(since the extra logging messages are benign after all) 
> 
> 
> 'benign'.  Except I've already told you they were annoying, not
> malignant.  
> 
> 
>>[If you download open-source...] then one should be willing to make
> 
> some slight effort to address the "problem". 
> 
> If I'm gonna play with the big open-source boys, I should wear long
> pants, is that it? Who said I wasn't willing?  Conversly, who says I
> have time to do this? Maybe I'm under deadline, and this is (after all)
> a minor annoyance. Maybe I asked the question because I thought perhaps
> someone else at some time had shared the same thought about the
> verbosity, and found a setting to turn it off.  And the quotes around
> the word problem. Hmm, very subtle. I can almost see the <eyeroll> and
> your two hands come up and make the little "quote" signs with your two
> fingers.  Minimize others problems, especially when *you* feel they are
> truly minor.

You parsed the subtext of my message quite correctly, Mike. Congratulations!

> 
> 
>>but this logging business...
> 
> 
> Trailing off, implying a knowing nudge and wink between the "people that
> get it" and "those that don't".  It's no longer worth your time; you
> can't be bothered to finish sentences anymore, this "problem" is just so
> minor and ridiculous. Bah! I wash my hands of it!
> 
> 
>  
> Anyways... I'm generally a level-headed person, and it takes a lot to
> irritate me. 

You're making me laugh again, Mike! You're a darned funny guy! :-)

> I also dislike flamewars, and feel somewhat chagrined that
> I had a small part to play in the last (current?) one. Jonathan, I don't
> believe you intend this effect you have. Your seem genuinely surprised
> when others have a bad reaction. 

You're wrong on that. I'm not so surprised really. :-)

> I guess I just couldn't pass up the
> opportunity to point out another bad reaction. (which leaves me
> personally disappointed).  Having said that, I'll be upset if this turns
> into another flame war, and so because I also believe that no one can
> "single-handedly" propagate a flame war, I'll leave with two things:
> 1) I'm not replying to any of the points below the big line of asterisks
> 2) I feel like I need to shower now.  ;)

Mike, apparently 70% of men play with themselves in the shower. Do you 
know what the other 30% do?

Cheers,

Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
XML transformation with FreeMarker, http://freemarker.org/docs/xgui.html



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