That is pretty much what Matt implemented. See the other arguments around
this, the primary one being that the factory methods are normally invoked
dynamically so you wouldn’t be looking at the code that calls them. They are
primarily called in the open in unit tests.
Ralph
On Jun 16, 2014, at 6:49 AM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote:
> I don't know why the Spring link isn't working (try later) but this is how I
> think you guys can make the builder pattern better. Honestly, it's impossible
> to comprehend what the parameters mean just by looking at the code in the
> current form.
>
> Example returning a custom builder interface:
> FileAppender.builder()
> .setPropertyX(true)
> .setPropertyY(true)
> .setPropertyZ(4096)
> .setPropertyA(null)
> .create();
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:41 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>
>
>
