I'm unable to load that page for some reason, but yes, using a factory method as such is really not extensible. If the factory method took a Map or some sort of configuration object (which itself could use the fluent builder pattern), that would be less tightly coupled.
Wouldn't it also make sense for the factory methods to be private or similar? That way they're only accessible through reflection. On Sunday, 15 June 2014, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > You don't want factory methods that take umpteen arguments. That's no way > to make your builder extensible for future enhancements. Instead, you want > a builder object that has a fluent API. > > > http://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/3.2.8.RELEASE/javadoc-api/org/springframework/beans/factory/support/BeanDefinitionBuilder.html > > > Cheers, > Paul > > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:04 PM, 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) > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
