Alright, sounds good then.

On 3 June 2014 12:05, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes. I would imagine that the code that would be calling pluginmanager
> would be different and is only interested in the type converters. Likewise,
> nothing else is interested in the type converters.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 3, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Alright, so it would make sense to use a different category name for the
> type converters?
>
>
> On 3 June 2014 11:43, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Use for what? Most main components that are part of the main
>> configuration use core. The key to the category is what will be processing
>> the plugin.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> It's probably a simple change. In the meantime, should I use the Core
>> category, or should I use a new one?
>>
>>
>> On 3 June 2014 08:51, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> This sounds like an optimization, not something that requires spending a
>>> lot of time on.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Jun 3, 2014, at 12:15 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Exactly, an enum would help know what is legal. It could just be used
>>> for documentation for all I know. A set of constants would be better if we
>>> need something extensible.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Matt Sicker
>>> Date:06/03/2014 02:48 (GMT-05:00)
>>> To: Log4J Developers List
>>> Subject: Re: Registering converters
>>>
>>> Well, what categories are we supposed to use? Is there a set list, or
>>> can we just use whatever? It's not that clear other than looking at current
>>> usage (most things are in the Core category).
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3 June 2014 01:31, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A new annotation to do what? To specify which category the plugin
>>>> belongs to? What is wrong with the way it is now? What problem are we
>>>> trying to solve?
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 2, 2014, at 8:30 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A new annotation seems simpler to me but that might be contradictory to
>>>> what Ralph had in mind when he created the framework. Hopefully, let us
>>>> know ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, but now I'm wondering which approach to take. Re-use @Plugin,
>>>>> add another annotation, or refactor how categories are handled in @Plugin.
>>>>> Could be a mix of 1 and 3, with 3 coming later.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2 June 2014 22:00, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Welcome back Matt then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you putting yourself on deck to redo the type converters a la
>>>>>> Log4j?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scratch that idea. It's using ASM. That's definitely not worth it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2 June 2014 21:51, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm looking at how Spring does it, and for pre-1.8 code, it's quite
>>>>>>>> the rabbit hole. I'll report back when I find my way out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2 June 2014 21:39, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not for the factory/builder stuff! Unless we cached more data
>>>>>>>>>> about plugins like that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah, I made an incorrect assumption then. Let's keep it simple and
>>>>>>>>> require the name then? We can always enhance later.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2 June 2014 21:32, Gary Gregory <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It would only happen at compile time... so who cares?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In regards to the parameter reflection stuff, I can't find
>>>>>>>>>>>> anything in 1.6 other than using
>>>>>>>>>>>> Introspector.getBeanInfo(Class<?>).getMethodDescriptors() and
>>>>>>>>>>>> MethodDescriptor.getParameterDescriptors(). From what I recall,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Introspector is rather slow for this sort of situation and is 
>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly used
>>>>>>>>>>>> in GUIs that deal with JavaBeans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 June 2014 21:20, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 June 2014 21:14, Gary Gregory <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, my point is that you'd just use an annotation. What the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> annotation is, I do not know. I'm not crazy about the category 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general because I am one typo away on a late night from getting 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the code does not compile, that's easier to fix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on that. It's terribly frustrating to deal with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime problems that should have been detectable at compile 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. Perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of categories we had a meta-annotation that describes a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> category, and then plugins can use a category annotation instead 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter? We could really use annotations like this to make 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> things more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> typed with less typing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>>>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>>>>>>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>>>>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected]
>>>>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>>>>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected]
>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected]
>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker <[email protected]>

Reply via email to