It's much more than personal preference. It's about readability and
maintainability. Think about what will happen if you have to add another
option to FileAppender: you have to create another overloaded method with
another argument. This pattern will continue and will not get any easier.
It also forces the user to fill out every possible value (even nullable
values). In terms of designing an API that's fluent and maintainable, you
definitely want an interface.
Cheers,
Paul
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
