Gary, good question.
To be honest, I'm not that convinced that builders are by definition better.
For example, if you miss a parameter with the factory method, you get a
compilation error.
If you forget to call one of the builder.setValue(value) methods, you may
never notice...
I see the argument that builders give names to the arguments, and so if you
have many null arguments the builder code is still readable, but I already
demonstrated that there are other ways to achieve the same readability.
I'm thinking this is just a matter of style and personal preference.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> FWIW, it does seem like a *lot* of work to redo some if not all plugins
> and I do understand Matt's POV. Would it even be possible to add builders
> later? Would we have to keep factory methods around for BC? I do not think
> there is a right and wrong pattern here, it's just that we have something
> that works now, indeed, with some pains here and there (default values for
> example).
>
> Here is an alternate question: if we could wave a magic wand and get the
> work done now, which solution would we want?
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Matt,
>>
>> Ralph's argument (and I agree) was that we want only one way to do
>> plugins, either with a factory method or with a builder.
>>
>> Currently only two plugins use the new builder: PatternLayout and
>> HtmlLayout.
>> So we can either revert these two back to use a factory method, or we can
>> convert the remaining 147 uses of the factory method to builders.
>> That last option would mean writing the builders for those plugins, and
>> modifying all JUnit tests that currently use the factory methods.
>>
>> I agree with Ralph that converting all remaining 147 places to use
>> builders would take up a lot of our time and energy for very little gain.
>>
>> Matt, you mentioned that you could live with factory methods if there was
>> a better way to write JUnit tests than
>> FileAppender.createAppender("true", "true", "true", "true", "true",
>> "true", "true", "4096", null, null, "false", null, null);
>>
>> I believe I've demonstrated several ways in which such JUnit test code
>> can be improved.
>> Are you okay with removing the builders and reverting back to the factory
>> methods?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
