On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:
> You would have to support both the old and new format. > I do not think we have to be that cute, do we? Gary > > Ralph > > On Aug 27, 2014, at 8:23 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > This idea came up in a recent bug report: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-798 > > I'm thinking that we could do something that either works well when you > cat together various plugin cache files, or if it were an XML file dump, > then we could have a tool to combine them together to address this other > issue: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-673 > > > On 28 July 2014 15:34, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Good points. I guess I can just wait to see if anyone wants such a >> feature. It would certainly make shading easier, but I don't like to >> encourage that anyhow. >> >> >> On 28 July 2014 15:22, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I equate “human editable” with “error prone”. >>> >>> I’d wait until someone actually requests this with a real live use case >>> before I’d want it implemented. I’m not sure what the benefit is of >>> “disabling” a plugin. It is automatically “disabled” if it isn’t >>> referenced in the configuration. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> So our current format works quite well for automated tool usage. If you >>> don't already know, it's basically a serialized HashMap containing class >>> names and the attributes from the @Plugin annotation associated with each >>> class. Normally, this file is generated through the Java compiler via an >>> annotation processor. However, languages like Scala, Clojure, Groovy, and >>> whatever others that exist that don't create intermediate Java code don't >>> support annotation processing. Thus, the resurrection of the runtime >>> package scan functionality. >>> >>> What I'd like to propose would be some sort of human-editable plugin >>> file format for those who may prefer to create their own. It would be nice >>> for being able to customize your Log4j distribution by enabling and >>> disabling plugins selectively. >>> >>> As a Java guy, I'd propose an XML format because that's what everyone >>> else does. Plus, there's the XML APIs already, so no custom file format >>> processors or anything are necessary. >>> >>> Note that the serialized file would still be preferred as the way to go >>> since it's already there and supported. However, offering an alternative >>> would be neat. Plus, the annotation processor could be extended to generate >>> the XML (or whatever) file. >>> >>> ============ >>> >>> Alternatively, a neat idea could be to use the ServiceLoader class from >>> JDK 1.6+. The various plugin types (Appender, Filter, Layout, >>> PatternConverter, etc.) could all be services, and we can load all the >>> provided implementations. We could also simply extend this idea by filling >>> the service provider file with a list of packages to scan instead of >>> forcing the configuration file to specify where they are. This could be a >>> simpler approach for internal plugins. >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > > -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] 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
