yybmion commented on PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#issuecomment-3265754355
@vy @ppkarwasz Thanks for the detailed guidance.
I Created a new PR based on this discussion: #3921
Implemented the suggested approach
- New method: `getConfiguratio
vy commented on PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#issuecomment-3262159881
@ppkarwasz, can you explain why would we want to return null instead of
throwing? Note that _"because we sometimes return null"_ does not constitute as
an argument, since what we're tal
ppkarwasz commented on PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#issuecomment-3233181160
> @ppkarwasz, since there is no established default that one can claim as a
stable API, I'm inclined to throw `IAE`, or `NPE` (when arg is null) on
failures. WDYT?
I think
vy commented on PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#issuecomment-3225044795
> One open question is how to define the nullability/return contract. The
existing single-URI overload,
>
> ```java
> public Configuration getConfiguration(LoggerContext contex
yybmion commented on PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#issuecomment-3223735901
@ppkarwasz @vy Thank you both for the incredibly thoughtful discussion and
analysis!
I really appreciate how this conversation evolved from my initial approach
to a much de
ppkarwasz commented on PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#issuecomment-3219871039
My idea for the proposed method
```java
public Configuration getConfiguration(LoggerContext context, String name,
List uris)
```
is to encapsulate the logic cu
vy commented on PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#issuecomment-3219502641
> * **`isActive()`**: aside from its inconsistent semantics today (which we
could technically fix)
Created #3896 for this.
> **TL;DR:** Spring Boot does not actually need t
ppkarwasz commented on PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#issuecomment-3211804379
> > * Implementations are **inconsistent** today: some factories always
report active but conditionally restrict types (e.g., Log4j 1 XML returns `xml`
only when a property is se
vy commented on PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#issuecomment-3209253360
Another concern I have regarding adding a new, as a matter of fact, 2nd
after `getSupportedTypes()`, _"supported file extensions"_ concept to `CF` is
that it reinforces the idea of a `C
vy commented on PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#issuecomment-3209220815
> > 1. It duplicates quite some logic (e.g., in `JsonConfigurationFactory`,
extensions and suffixes are semantically identical).
>
> Totally agree. Let’s put a **default** impleme
yybmion commented on code in PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#discussion_r2289835030
##
log4j-core/src/main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/core/config/ConfigurationFactory.java:
##
@@ -617,4 +636,19 @@ private String[] parseConfigLocations(final S
ppkarwasz commented on PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#issuecomment-3206986816
> 1. It duplicates quite some logic (e.g., in `JsonConfigurationFactory`,
extensions and suffixes are semantically identical).
Totally agree. Let’s put a **default** implem
ppkarwasz commented on code in PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#discussion_r2288444366
##
log4j-core/src/main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/core/config/ConfigurationFactory.java:
##
@@ -263,6 +264,14 @@ public static void removeConfigurationFacto
vy commented on code in PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#discussion_r2288091615
##
log4j-core/src/main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/core/config/ConfigurationFactory.java:
##
@@ -617,4 +636,19 @@ private String[] parseConfigLocations(final String
vy commented on PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#issuecomment-3206278760
@ppkarwasz, would you mind reminding me why we decided to introduce a new
API such that
1. It duplicates quite some logic (e.g., in `JsonConfigurationFactory`,
extensions and suf
yybmion commented on PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#issuecomment-3201841069
Hi @ppkarwasz , Just a gentle reminder — PTAL when you have time.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub a
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839#issuecomment-3099366989
Job
Requested goals
Build Tool Version
Build Outcome
Build Scan®
build-
yybmion opened a new pull request, #3839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/3839
### Summary
Add ConfigurationFactory.getActiveFileExtensions() and
getSupportedExtensions() methods to allow external frameworks like Spring Boot
to determine which configuration file fo
18 matches
Mail list logo
