[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-653?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14008665#comment-14008665
]
Remko Popma commented on LOG4J2-653:
------------------------------------
I get how injection mechanisms work, but I'm not sure why introducing such a
mechanism here is a good idea.
Guice or Spring supply a whole bunch of infrastructure to make this work,
right?
Wouldn't we need to create similar infrastructure to do the injecting? Sound
like a non-trivial undertaking. Especially if the main use case is the unit
tests.
In your above example the JUnit test explicitly calls
{{builder.withFoo("foo").withBar("bar")}} and there is no magic and it is clear
what is going on. I don't see how injection would improve things. (Actually I
still don't see how this would work: the values to inject have to come from
somewhere... I cannot imagine what a JUnit test that uses injection would look
like...)
Perhaps I'm just lacking in imagination.
> Add plugin builder classes as alternative to factory methods.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LOG4J2-653
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-653
> Project: Log4j 2
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Core
> Reporter: Matt Sicker
> Assignee: Matt Sicker
> Labels: config
>
> It would be useful to have builder-style classes as an alternative to plugin
> factory methods. This would be useful in two settings:
> # Easier to construct plugins in tests and in the code.
> # Can add annotations to fields for value injection in the PluginBuilder
> class.
> This could replace the existing factory methods, or it could complement it.
> This would also make it easier to support programmatic configuration.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
