Great, thanks Ralph. Gary
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > Yup to both. I’ll look at it tomorrow. > > Ralph > > On Sep 18, 2016, at 10:31 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Nevermind, I can just overwrite the name in the Node's attribute map... > that works. I'd like a code review before or after merging to master. > > Gary > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hm, but how? org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.AbstractAppender.name >> <http://org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.abstractappender.name/> >> is final and there is no Appender.setName(String). Surely, we should not >> use reflection... >> >> Gary >> >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I haven’t looked at your code but when you create the “real” appender >>> you need to change its name to match the name of the selector so that >>> AppenderRefs work. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> On Sep 18, 2016, at 9:24 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I've implemented a first cut in the branch LOG4J2-1597 but I think I >>> need some help to connect the final dot (or two). >>> >>> When I run the new unit test org.apache.logging.log4j.core. >>> appender.ScriptSelectorAppenderTest, the status logger shows: >>> >>> 2016-09-18 21:19:09,393 main ERROR Unable to locate appender "SelectIt" >>> for logger config "root" >>> 2016-09-18 21:19:09,465 main ERROR Unable to locate appender "SelectIt" >>> for logger config "root" >>> 2016-09-18 21:19:09,485 main ERROR Unable to locate appender "SelectIt" >>> for logger config "root" >>> 2016-09-18 21:19:09,505 main ERROR Unable to locate appender "SelectIt" >>> for logger config "root" >>> >>> Which initially makes sense: the appender created and returned by the >>> builder of "SelectIt" is really an appender named "List2". >>> >>> I tried to add a hack in org.apache.logging.log4j.core. >>> appender.ScriptSelector.Builder.build() to no avail: >>> >>> // This feels like a hack and it does not work: >>> configuration.getAppenders().put(name, appender); >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> See inline >>>> >>>> On Sep 16, 2016, at 10:31 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme. >>>> com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Gary, >>>>> >>>>> I have no problem with components that can be dumbed down to do simple >>>>> things. I do have a problem with components that only do simple things >>>>> because people will constantly asked to have them be enhanced. >>>>> >>>>> As for what you are proposing here, can I just say “No”? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sure! :-) You can say whatever you want! :-) >>>> >>>> >>>>> Having the Appenders element deferred just smells to me and having an >>>>> arbitrary script there just seems weird to me. Does it even have a >>>>> contract >>>>> or is it a free-for-all? How does it cause multiple appenders to be >>>>> initialized? >>>>> >>>>> I think the RoutingAppender is a more appropriate solution. However, >>>>> if you want to dumb it down a bit and turn it into an AppenderSelector I’d >>>>> be ok with that. However, it would still be fairly similar to the >>>>> RoutingAppender. >>>>> >>>> >>>> OK, so going back to one of your eariler messages: >>>> >>>> ==copy start== >>>> >>>> This sort of sounds like you want an Appender Selector, which would be >>>> an Appender that uses a Selector to figure out which Appender to delegate >>>> to. This is a bit like the PatternSelector. I would imagine it would make >>>> sense to implement AppenderSelectors and LayoutSelectors. You probably >>>> would want to dynamically initialize the Appenders much like the >>>> RoutingAppender does. >>>> >>>> Maybe it would look like: >>>> >>>> <Appenders> >>>> <ScriptSelector name=“" default=“”> >>>> <Script language=“groovy”><