[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1093?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14723488#comment-14723488
]
Remko Popma commented on LOG4J2-1093:
-------------------------------------
Bart, some of what you are saying makes sense. It does not all have to be about
patches with unit tests. Some discussion is great. It is just that I personally
find your writing style extremely irritating. Sorry to be blunt. You have not
held back, time for me to return the favour. It is your lengthy and unfocussed,
stream-of-consciousness writing style that gets in the way of a productive
discussion, not the content of what you are saying per se.
You're complaining that people don't read your messages. I guess you are
correct. Several people have mentioned that your messages are too long. You
ignored this. (Well, not really; you actually got pretty upset that people
DARED to criticize your creative thinking process.) And you continue to send
REALLY LONG messages. Which I predict again won't be read. Which will frustrate
you. And will cause you to send more really long messages that get
progressively angrier in tone. Etc. We are going around in circles.
>From some of the things you have said in the past, I suspect this may not be
>the first open source project where things are not working out. I am guessing
>that people have given you similar feedback then. Why do you think that
>repeating the same behaviour will give different results this time?
PS
I will read all replies that are 300 words or less. (For reference, your
previous message was 1200+ words.) Long replies broken in 300 word chunks: only
the first such chunk will get read. So my advice is to take your time to
distill it to its essence.
> Builder for FileAppender
> -------------------------
>
> Key: LOG4J2-1093
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1093
> Project: Log4j 2
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Appenders
> Affects Versions: 2.4
> Environment: Any
> Reporter: Bart S.
> Labels: features, patch
> Attachments: FileAppender_patch-Builder-proposal.patch
>
> Original Estimate: 24h
> Remaining Estimate: 24h
>
> Hi, In my quest for programmatic control I ran into the fact that the
> FileAppender didn't have an Builder method to use.
> I really wanted to brainstorm about it first before I sent in my patch,
> seeing as that it might deviate from coding standards that I'm not completely
> aware of.
> The FileAppender has these issues with creating a Builder:
> - the create..... method takes String parameters and does sanity checking
> - to have a builder use the create.... method requires converting all
> parameters back to String, which is ugly and in a sense time consuming.
> - the same is true for the ConsoleAppender and its builder just does away
> with any sanity checks and error messages and just calls the constructor
> directly.
> I have taken a different path in my code. I have extracted the sanity check
> and placed it in its own routine. So there are basically four options:
> * no sanity checking for the builder
> * builder uses create method
> * create method uses builder
> * separate sanity checking and call both from create and builder
> I have currently chosen the latter path. I use a MutableBoolean or the
> equivalent. My current code uses a new static inner class just thrown
> together for this purpose, but I believe the Core utilizes
> org.apache.commons.lang3, which contains mutable.MutableBoolean.
> The rewrite is currently complete and compiles well. The unit test for
> FileAppender still completes without fail (1 skipped, it says):
> {quote}
> -------------------------------------------------------
> T E S T S
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Running org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppenderTest
> Tests run: 6, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 1, Time elapsed: 4.713 sec -
> in org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppenderTest
> Results :
> Tests run: 6, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 1
> [INFO]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [INFO] BUILD SUCCESS
> [INFO]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [INFO] Total time: 01:18 min
> [INFO] Finished at: 2015-08-12T17:59:18+02:00
> [INFO] Final Memory: 22M/336M
> [INFO]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> {quote}
> Meanwhile, my own code that utilizes it compiles against it and works
> perfectly. I haven't written a unit test or tests for it yet.
> Moreover, I have made these changes:
> - extract sanity checking from create........() method. Into its own
> "checkParameters() : boolean".
> - the boolean value that is subject to being changed is turned into a type of
> MutableBoolean (simply a class with a boolean field at this point)
> - this variable is passed to the checking function where it might get changed
> - the value of the variable is subsequently used in place of the original
> boolean
> - this {{checkParameters()}} is called from {{createAppender()}} AND from
> {{Builder.build()}}.
> - a minor amount of code is still duplicated, namely the creation of the
> manager (FileManager) and the call to the constructor.
> - annotations and style is/are mimicked as much as possible from
> ConsoleAppender.Builder
> That's all for it now. You can view the result at the attached diff. Note
> that there is still no unit test for it and this is just a proposal, open for
> amendment and suggestion.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
