I agree.
It seems like we're preparing to do a lot of work to essentially enable users
to duplicate our unit tests...
Sent from my iPhone
> On 2016/01/28, at 0:44, Mikael Ståldal wrote:
>
> OK, then the keeping config nodes approach might not be a good idea.
>
>
OK, then the keeping config nodes approach might not be a good idea.
However, I still don't think that the benefit of being able to inspect
appender's config justifies the cost of increasing the complexity of every
appender (including future ones and 3rd party plugins).
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at
One use case that I have at hand at the moment is that I want to be able to
verify that my appenders have the expected configuration attributes. For
example, I would like to be able to verify that my syslog appender is
connecting to the expected host,port,protocol, etc.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at
To me it does not seems good to force all Appender implementations to
implement this. Especially not since the next logical step would then be to
do the same with other components such as Layouts. That would be a lot of
work in total, and also add more work for all future components, including
3rd
Then perhaps we should keep the node tree and expose it for this kind of
queries, something like this:
String hostname = loggerContext.getConfiguration().
getAttributesForAppender("syslogAppender").get("host");
This would require a new method in
That sounds a little fragile as some people either create or modify their
creation directly from the plugin factories.
On 27 January 2016 at 07:05, Mikael Ståldal
wrote:
> Then perhaps we should keep the node tree and expose it for this kind of
> queries, something
I mean keeping the Node tree to get attributes. It would only work from
config files (and the config builder classes). We get questions every so
often about modifying the config programmatically which would either need
to maintain more Nodes or just be unsupported.
On 27 January 2016 at 09:09,
It would be useful if Apostolis Giannakidis can explain the use case behind
this request, now it is a bit abstract to me.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> I mean keeping the Node tree to get attributes. It would only work from
> config files (and the