I've done some work on this, there may be more places to improve, I mainly focused on PluginBuilder and PluginAttributeVisitor.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, I liked the prettier logging format. I was planning to add it back > in, but it appears as though I completely forgot about it! The "new" format > was a quick placeholder. I'll try and work on that this week. > > > On 10 June 2014 19:47, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Maybe Matt can shed a light on this? >> >> Gary >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> I don't know exactly what I would be vetoing. I have no problem with >>> some of the refactoring. The commit(s) that changed the logging probably >>> happened weeks ago and I am just noticing now. >>> >>> But yes, I want the logging aspect of the changes reverted back to what >>> was previously being done. >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On Jun 10, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Well, for Log4j Plugins, one way to configure should be plenty. I am OK >>> with the factory method pattern, while it makes for some long signatures, I >>> like that it is all in one place. >>> >>> May I suggest a simple "-1" reply on the ML on the changes to logging? >>> Do you feel a VETO is inappropriate here? >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I think the discussion was not on its own thread. I thought there was >>>> agreement that there should be only one way to configure plugins. I prefer >>>> the factory method simply because it would be a whole lot of effort to >>>> convert everything to a builder and I just don't think the benefit is worth >>>> the effort. >>>> >>>> I spent a lot of time making the debug output "nice" and easily >>>> understandable so I am a bit upset that it was tossed and replaced with >>>> what you see below. >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> On Jun 10, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Ralph Goers < >>>> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am working on a new Appender and am noticing that the debug output >>>>> is now far less useful than it used to be. I used to see the factory >>>>> method >>>>> being invoked with all of its parameters very nicely formatted. Now I see >>>>> >>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,858 DEBUG No compatible method annotated with >>>>> interface >>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.plugins.PluginBuilderFactory >>>>> found in class class >>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender. >>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,858 DEBUG Found factory method class >>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender.public static >>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender >>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender.createAppender(org.apache.logging.log4j.core.Layout,org.apache.logging.log4j.core.Filter,java.lang.String,java.lang.String). >>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,864 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class >>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender >>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,864 DEBUG PatternLayout(%m%n) >>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,864 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class >>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender >>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class >>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender >>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Attribute(name="Servlet") >>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class >>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender >>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Null string given to convert. Using >>>>> default [null]. >>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,866 DEBUG Attribute(ignoreExceptions="null") >>>>> >>>>> This is far more verbose, repetitive, and is nowhere near as clear as >>>>> it used to be. >>>>> >>>>> Can you please get the logging output back to the old format? >>>>> >>>>> Also, can we change PatternLayout back to a factory and remove the >>>>> message about no builder factory being present? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think we need to decide how many ways there are to configure a >>>> plugin: factory, builder, and whatever else we've been discussing. This is >>>> getting quite confusing! >>>> >>>> I thought we had a thread going on the topic already... >>>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ralph >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >>>> 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 >>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >>> 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 >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >
