One very simple way I use to clarify which parameter is what is to declare
a local variable for each param.
For example:
(and this is not strictly a @Plugin factory method, but you get my point...)
public class RingBufferLogEventTest {
@Test
public void testGetLevelReturnsOffIfNullLevelSet() {
RingBufferLogEvent evt = new RingBufferLogEvent();
String loggerName = null;
Marker marker = null;
String fqcn = null;
Level level = null;
Message data = null;
Throwable t = null;
Map<String, String> map = null;
ContextStack contextStack = null;
String threadName = null;
StackTraceElement location = null;
long currentTimeMillis = 0;
evt.setValues(null, loggerName, marker, fqcn, level, data, t, map,
contextStack, threadName, location, currentTimeMillis);
assertEquals(Level.OFF, evt.getLevel());
}
To me this is just as clear as
builder.setLoggerName(null)
.withMarker(null)
.withLoggerFQCN(null)
.withLevel(null)
.withMessage(null)
.withThrowable(null)
.withContextMap(null)
.withContextStack(null)
.withThreadName(null)
.withLocation(null)
.withCurrentTime(0)
.build()
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I can live with factory methods if we have a better method for doing
> unit tests. Not all unit tests need an XML configuration file.
>
>
> On 15 June 2014 22:04, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> Matt,
>>
>> The only objection I have to builders is that there should only be one
>> way to configure plugins and I have neither the time or energy to convert
>> all plugins from factories to builders. With 130+ open issues I think our
>> time is better focused there instead of fixing something that already works.
>>
>> And, FWIW, the only place you will see createAppender coded like that is
>> in unit tests and there are a bunch of ways to make that clearer.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Jun 15, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm really against using factory methods due to language limitations in
>> Java. You can't specify default values, for one. Two, the more parameters a
>> factory takes, the crazier the method is. Seriously, tell me what this
>> method is specifying:
>>
>> FileAppender.createAppender("true", "true", "true", "true", "true",
>> "true", "true", "4096", null, null, "false", null, null);
>>
>>
>> On 15 June 2014 21:05, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm fine with just the factory methods too.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On 2014/06/16, at 9:44, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>> On Jun 15, 2014 4:05 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do we need the builders? As I said, I prefer only one way for creating
>>>> plugins.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 15, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I see. I agree that the original format is much nicer.
>>>>
>>>> Matt, do you think you can achieve this with the builders?
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On 2014/06/16, at 1:29, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> While you improved some of the existing messages, you really didm’t
>>>> address what I wanted fixed. The previous debug logs would have had
>>>> messages similar to:
>>>>
>>>> Calling createLayout on class
>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.PatternLayout for element
>>>> PatternLayout with params(pattern="%d{HH:mm:ss.SSS} [%t] %-5level
>>>> %logger{36} - %msg%n",
>>>> Configuration(D:\rista\eclipsekws\.metadata\.plugins\org.eclipse.wst.server.core\tmp1\wtpwebapps\log4j2.0-test\WEB-INF\classes\test-log4j.xml),
>>>> null, charset="null", alwaysWriteExceptions="null")
>>>>
>>>> Calling createAppender on class
>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.ConsoleAppender for element Console
>>>> with params(PatternLayout(%d{HH:mm:ss.SSS} [%t] %-5level %logger{36} -
>>>> %msg%n), null, target="SYSTEM_OUT", name="console", follow="null",
>>>> ignoreExceptions="null")
>>>>
>>>> Calling createAppenderRef on class
>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.AppenderRef for element appender-ref
>>>> with params(ref="console", level="null", null)
>>>> 2013-09-20 15:06:55,749 DEBUG Calling createLogger on class
>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.LoggerConfig$RootLogger for element
>>>> root with params(additivity="null", level="error", includeLocation="null",
>>>> AppenderRef={console}, Properties={},
>>>> Configuration(D:\rista\eclipsekws\.metadata\.plugins\org.eclipse.wst.server.core\tmp1\wtpwebapps\log4j2.0-test\WEB-INF\classes\test-log4j.xml),
>>>> null)
>>>>
>>>> The current log emits stuff like:
>>>>
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,432 DEBUG Building Plugin[name=layout,
>>>> class=org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout]. Searching for
>>>> builder factory method...
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,435 DEBUG No builder factory method found in class
>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout.
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,435 DEBUG Still building Plugin[name=layout,
>>>> class=org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout]. Searching for
>>>> factory method...
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,436 DEBUG Found factory method [createLayout]:
>>>> public static org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout
>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout.createLayout(boolean,boolean,boolean,boolean,java.nio.charset.Charset).
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,436 DEBUG Generating parameters for factory method
>>>> [createLayout]...
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,456 DEBUG Attribute(locationInfo="false") - no
>>>> value specified, using default.
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,456 DEBUG Attribute(properties="false") - no value
>>>> specified, using default.
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,457 DEBUG Attribute(complete="true") - no value
>>>> specified, using default.
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,457 DEBUG Attribute(compact="false") - no value
>>>> specified, using default.
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,457 DEBUG Attribute(charset="UTF-8") - no value
>>>> specified, using default.
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,587 DEBUG Built Plugin[name=layout] OK from factory
>>>> method.
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,588 DEBUG Building Plugin[name=appender,
>>>> class=org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppender]. Searching for
>>>> builder factory method...
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,588 DEBUG No builder factory method found in class
>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppender.
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,589 DEBUG Still building Plugin[name=appender,
>>>> class=org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppender]. Searching for
>>>> factory method...
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,589 DEBUG Found factory method [createAppender]:
>>>> public static org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppender
>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppender.createAppender(java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,org.apache.logging.log4j.core.Layout,org.apache.logging.log4j.core.Filter,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.Configuration).
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,589 DEBUG Generating parameters for factory method
>>>> [createAppender]...
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,595 DEBUG
>>>> Attribute(fileName="target/XmlCompleteFileAppenderTest.log")
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,596 DEBUG Attribute(append="false")
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,596 DEBUG Attribute(locking="null")
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,596 DEBUG Attribute(name="XmlFile")
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,597 DEBUG Attribute(immediateFlush="false")
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,597 DEBUG Attribute(ignoreExceptions="null")
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,597 DEBUG Attribute(bufferedIo="null")
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,598 DEBUG Attribute(bufferSize="null")
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,598 DEBUG
>>>> XMLLayout(org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout@5eef9f84)
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,598 DEBUG Attribute(advertise="null")
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,599 DEBUG Attribute(advertiseUri="null")
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,599 DEBUG
>>>> Configuration(/Users/rgoers/projects/apache/logging/log4j/log4j2/trunk/log4j-core/target/test-classes/XmlCompleteFileAppenderTest.xml)
>>>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,601 DEBUG Starting FileManager
>>>> target/XmlCompleteFileAppenderTest.log
>>>>
>>>> The previous format was a lot more compact as it essentially showed you
>>>> the parameters being passed to the factory method in one line while
>>>> identifying the class it came from and the configuration element that
>>>> triggered it. The new log emits that info as individual lines with a few
>>>> messages that are just noise.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 14, 2014, at 10:11 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
>
