Well, let's talk about it! I find some of these typs names confusing and the
javadocs could be better. Better names will help us. Names are important to
communicate clearly what our _intentions_ are.
Gary
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Ralph Goers
<rgo...@apache.org> </div><div>Date:06/03/2014 02:38 (GMT-05:00)
</div><div>To: Log4J Developers List <log4j-dev@logging.apache.org>
</div><div>Subject: Re: Config clean up for AppenderRef </div><div>
</div>We are never going to release 2.0. A few of you keep wanting to
continually refactor and rename stuff is making things worse in my opinion.
As I have said before, a good example is that I find AbstractLogger to be a
much better name than AbstractLoggerProvider and think it was a mistake to
rename it, but I didn't speak up fast enough when it happened. We have over
100 Jira issues that I would think would be far more productive to address then
these silly refactoring and renaming excercises.
Just leave the configuration syntax alone.
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 2, 2014, at 10:48 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
I wish everyone on the team would think of these things more in terms of
trade-offs.
What is the cost/benefit analysis of this change?
Plus: one or two people on the team like this name better from an aesthetical
point of view (I don't see any functional benefit). That gets some points, but
not as many as a functional improvement would get.
Minus: it breaks the configuration of existing users. That's a lot of minus
points to me.
Times the number of affected people (both plus and minus)...
And why are we even talking about this?
Because I am a volunteer and I care about some things more than others, if
other folks don't, that's fine too.
Look at this as a trade-off of working in a FOSS environment ;-)
Also, for a new major version, everything matters. This is really more like a
version 1.0 of the reboot of a classic franchise. IMO, everything deserves
special care as we'll have to live with it for a long time.
This is why I've not been pushing for a release. I'd like to know as much of
the code as possible. Check out all the nooks and crannies.
I have great respect for the work Ralph has put in, it is a tremendous effort
of high quality. But, it does not mean that it cannot benefit from reviews,
spit, and polish.
I think the community has grown and sees people come and go (where is Nick
Williams BTW ;-) It is nice that we can benefit from various talents in
different areas. We should take advantage of it all.
I like the enthusiasm and work that Matt has recently put in for example. We've
got a lot of talented people, let's take advantage of these volunteers and let
them all flourish.
Sure we might end up with more features, bells and whistles than are strictly
needed, but hopefully and so far, the software is that much the better for it.
And yes, we should all keep a diligent eye toward speed and memory, and all the
usual good that comes from peer reviews.
Cheers,
Gary
Sent from my iPhone
On 2014/06/03, at 10:28, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hm, why not adopt the same convention as Ant? It would be nicer IMO:
<File id="MyAppender />
<AppenderRef refid="MyAppender />
Both attributes have "id" in their name so the connection is more obvious.
Gary
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org> wrote:
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
--
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
--
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
