As I’ve said previously, I really dislike having two patterns for creating plugins.
Ralph On Sep 14, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > The builders are used first if they're available, falling back to the > factory. However, with more automatic checking of parameters and such, it > might not even be all that useful to have the builders anymore. It would be > good to have at least some createDefaultAppender() methods and such for our > own usage. > > Either way, as long as there's enough metadata to build the plugins > reflectively, we should be good to go. Adding a feature like automatic XSD > generation for the strict mode would be pretty neat for instance. > > On 14 September 2014 09:51, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > Seeing the last commit go by for a builder on the console appender made me > wonder if we really want this pattern considering the size cost in extra > code. So this is just a sanity check that we are not making this fancier than > it needs to be considering... what? That this would only be used for > programmatic configuration by tests and other apps. Are the builders also > used by the configuration code? > > Gary > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > JUnit in Action, Second Edition > Spring Batch in Action > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
