...and another (shorter) way would be to add a comment for each parameter:
factoryMethod(
null, // loggerName
null, // Marker
null, // LoggerFQCN
null, // Level
null, // Message
null, // Throwable
null, // ContextMap
null, // ContextStack
null, // ThreadName
null, // Location
0); // CurrentTime
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>
>>
>
>
