Hi Piotr,
On 11/29/24 10:07, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote:
Hi Pavel,
On 28.11.2024 19:26, PavelTurk wrote:
Thank you very much for your detailed and quick help.
However, to tell the truth, I’m a bit confused. I’ve been waiting for a long
time for Log4j to finally work according to the JPMS rules. But in your
message, you talk about compile-time and, as I understood, the use of some
plugin-processor (from your project pom):
<annotationProcessorPaths>
<path>
<groupId>org.apache.logging.log4j</groupId>
<artifactId>log4j-plugin-processor</artifactId>
<version>3.0.0-beta3</version>
</path>
</annotationProcessorPaths>
Doesn’t all this completely contradict JPMS?
> (...)
By the way, I noticed something seemed off when I saw code duplication in your
project:
@Configurable(elementType = Appender.ELEMENT_TYPE, printObject = true)
@Plugin(ConsoleAppender.PLUGIN_NAME)
public final class ConsoleAppender...
and
PluginEntry.builder()
.setKey("console")
.setClassName("org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.ConsoleAppender")
.setName("Console")
.setNamespace("Core")
.setElementType("appender")
.setPrintable(true)
.get(),
Or am I mistaken (which is always possible) and misunderstood everything?
We have an annotation processor that automatically generates the required
`PluginService` implementation, I don't see how that contradicts the principles
behind JPMS.
...
Let me explain my point of view. But first of all, I want to emphasize that I’m
not claiming to be right—I could very well be wrong. I’m simply saying that
using a processor seems incorrect to me.
In the world of JPMS, there’s a service, we implement it, and we add it. I
haven’t heard of a service + PROCESSOR that needs to be used. Can you point out
any other projects that involve a service + processor? The reasoning is that we
should only need to know the INTERFACE, and we’ll handle the IMPLEMENTATION
ourselves. After all, it’s possible to do without it—for example, by writing a
PluginService manually, which would scan the module itself and return the
necessary classes or just data(entries) about them. That’s why I said that
using a processor here seems odd to me. In general, I think code generation
should only be used as a last resort—for example, for JPA metamodels—but that’s
just my opinion.
I assume module-info was also generated automatically. The problem is that it’s
not present in log4j-core-3.0.0-beta3-sources.jar see [1], but it does exist in
log4j-core-3.0.0-beta3.jar see [2]. Additionally, it’s not in the repository
see [3]. So, it is not possible to see what is in this file. Or was I looking
in the wrong place?
[1]
https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/logging/log4j/log4j-core/3.0.0-beta3/log4j-core-3.0.0-beta3-sources.jar
[2]
https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/logging/log4j/log4j-core/3.0.0-beta3/log4j-core-3.0.0-beta3.jar
[3]
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/tree/rel/3.0.0-beta3/log4j-core/src/main/java
Best regards, Pavel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org
