Right, it seems confusing and does not send a clear message on how to author your plugins. Can we pick one way?
Gary <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Ralph Goers <[email protected]> </div><div>Date:09/14/2014 13:35 (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Log4J Developers List <[email protected]> </div><div>Subject: Re: Plugin builders </div><div> </div>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]>
