Right, so they are not part of the public API, unless we consider
programmatic configuration (not from a file).
Gary
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul this is about the plugin factory methods that are called by the
> PluginManager to turn a configuration text file into an object hierarchy
> with Loggers, Appenders, etc.
> It would be very rare for client code to call these methods directly.
> Which is why they are primarily called from JUnit tests.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
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
