If this API is primarily for unit tests, then I don't care as much. I
thought this was Public API. When it comes to Public API, I prefer to make
it as friendly-to-read and maintainable as possible.
Cheers,
Paul
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> About the validation, wasn't the argument that some of the current JUnit
> tests look like this?
> FileAppender.createAppender("true", "true", "true", "true", "true",
> "true", "true", "4096", null, null, "false", null, null);
>
> So, null is fine here for at least four arguments.
> So it is definitely possible to forget to call the builder.setValue(value)
> method for those arguments
> - which is fine if your intention was to set null, but not if you forgot
> to set some non-null value.
>
> The compiler validates that you have the right number of arguments for
> free.
> It is not possible for builders to provide the same guarantee unless all
> arguments must be non-null.
>
> About the readability - and as Ralph pointed out this is readability in
> JUnit code primarily - there are a number of ways to accomplish that.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
