I saw that, but there's no IDE autocomplete for it. As a huge abuser of
autocomplete, I feel like this might be worthwhile. I'll play around a bit
before committing to a huge task like that.
On 14 October 2015 at 21:37, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Before you expend the effort you might want to take a l
Before you expend the effort you might want to take a look at the new
ConfigurationBuilder that was introduced in 2.4. Maybe you will decide it
isn’t worth the effort. To be honest, I just created some new plugins for
scripting and actually considered using builders for them but it wasn’t clear
Reviving what I thought I read about a while ago. I'm willing to go through
all the plugin classes and add consistent builder classes. As it's been a
while since I've worked on Log4j, this would be a good place for me to work
again while I get familiar with the thousand new features. :)
On 13 Sept
I'm done with the documentation changes for programmatic configuration.
Phew!
I have nothing else in the pipeline for 2.4, and I also see no blockers in
Jira.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
> Almost done. I added a section on ConfigurationFactory. Will commit soon.
>
> On S
Almost done. I added a section on ConfigurationFactory. Will commit soon.
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> No, Go for it!
>
> Ralph
>
> On Sep 12, 2015, at 9:53 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
>
> Understood, so you would not want to remove the first example. Would you
> object to m
I'm sorry, Log4J has been a waste of time for me. I think I'm going to
find something else or code my own thing. The improvements you've made
are actually regressions for me. I should not have interfered.
My apologies for having been here. I guess I wasted everyone's time.
Regards, and cya.
B
No, Go for it!
Ralph
> On Sep 12, 2015, at 9:53 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
>
> Understood, so you would not want to remove the first example. Would you
> object to moving the section on the new Configuration Builder API to the top
> of the page to make it more prominent?
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015
Understood, so you would not want to remove the first example. Would you
object to moving the section on the new Configuration Builder API to the
top of the page to make it more prominent?
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> Well, I view the first example as a valid use case. S
ConfigurationBuilder builds a complete configuration. So no, it cannot modify
the current configuration. I suppose it would be possible to create a new
ConfigurationBuilder from the current configuration and then edit it, but that
would require a very different API than what is currently implem
Well, I view the first example as a valid use case. Some folks might want to
allow for a flexible configuration using XML but make sure there are a few
configuration elements that are always present that can’t be removed.
Of course, we might be able to solve that by addressing LOG4J2-494 and add
Thanks for bringing this up. Now that we have a configuration builder API
that is just as powerful and flexible as XML configuration, we should
advertise this as THE main way for users to programatically configure
Log4j.
The Custom Configuration manual page ("Extending Log4j Configuration" in
the
If Matt wants to replace the factory methods with builders I am ok with that. I
have no interest in doing the work myself.
I am hoping to start the release process for 2.4 tomorrow. I see no blockers.
Ralph
> On Sep 12, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> So here we are WRT programmati
12 matches
Mail list logo
