I think I agree with Remko. I think ref= is clearer.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 2, 2014, at 1:48 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hm, not sure. Two things:
>
> That would require our existing users to modify their configurations.
>
> Also, currently the "name" attribute provides an identifier for its element
> so that other elements can reference it. Isn't it clearer to have a different
> attribute when referring to another element? I think calling this attribute
> "ref" is very clear actually and I don't think having the same name for
> attributes that refer and attributes attributes that are being referred to is
> better.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 2014/06/02, at 15:46, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In the following:
>>
>> <File name="File" fileName="${filename}">
>> <PatternLayout>
>> <Pattern>${pattern}</Pattern>
>> </PatternLayout>
>> </File>
>> ...
>> <Loggers>
>> <Root level="Debug">
>> <AppenderRef ref="File" />
>> </Root>
>> </Loggers>
>>
>> I propose to change:
>>
>> <AppenderRef ref="File" />
>>
>> to:
>>
>> <AppenderRef name="File" />
>>
>> It seems easier to read and connect these dots:
>>
>> <File name="File"
>> ...
>> <AppenderRef name="File" />
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> Spring Batch in Action
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
