The 3 obvious choices: ScriptSelectorAppender, ScriptAppenderSelector, or AppenderScriptSelector. I actually prefer the second as it is an AppenderSelector that uses a Script (or rather, a Selector of an Appender that uses a Script). The first isn’t too bad as it is an Appender that is a ScriptSelector (or an Appender that acts as a Selector using a Script). The third choice is just terrible. I suppose with 3 words there are other choices as well but they probably suck too.
Ralph > On Sep 19, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ScriptSelectorAppender? > > > On Sep 19, 2016 2:29 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > <mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: > Actually, I do have one minor issue. It will cause confusion calling it > ScriptSelector. I am imagining the next step will be to create a > LayoutSelector that uses Scripts. I can also imagine a Selector for > AppenderRefs that uses Scripts. So calling it ScriptSelector is a bit > ambiguous, unless it is going to support creating any of these (which would > be hard since it extends AbstractAppender). > > Ralph > >> On Sep 19, 2016, at 12:02 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com >> <mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Great, thanks Ralph. >> >> Gary >> >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com >> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 >>>> <mailto: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 >>>> <mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: >>>> See inline >>>> >>>>> On Sep 16, 2016, at 10:31 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com >>>>> <mailto:ralph.go...@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”><