You can, but the programmatic API ends up becoming a builder as it is. I think it helps simplify code this way.
On 9 June 2014 15:15, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > Why? Are you saying a programmatic API can’t call factory methods? I know > that isn’t true. > > Ralph > > On Jun 9, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > A groovy configuration would be rather groovy. That would be part of a > programmatic configuration API, and that itself I think is dependent on > using builders instead of factory methods for plugins. > > > On 9 June 2014 11:22, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In this case it is won't fix because it just isn't possible to process >> 1.2 configurations in 2.0. The components take different attributes and the >> plugin system eliminates specifying classes. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jun 9, 2014, at 8:30 AM, Scott Deboy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> We shouldn't close feature requests as won't fix. Someone may come along >> later and decide to implement it. >> >> It's ok to say no one is planning on working on the feature, and remind >> the submitter that patches are welcome. >> >> Scott >> >> Scott >> On Jun 9, 2014 6:46 AM, "Paul Benedict" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I remember a ticket (dunno which one) being closed out as "Won't Fix" >>> for the properties format. Are you gong to reopen it since you're working >>> on the feature? >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday, 8 June 2014, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> With xml, you'd wrap all <property ...> tags in a <properties> >>>>> encapsulating list element, but perhaps that is not needed in this format? >>>>> >>>>> So, instead of: >>>>> log4j2.properties.property.key=value >>>>> we could have: >>>>> log4j2.property.key=value >>>>> >>>>> I like it. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Also (and this is just a matter of taste), can we use "appender" and >>>>> "logger" instead of the plural "appenders"/"loggers"? >>>>> >>>>> Also would prefer that. Both would require hard coded plugins instead >>>> of generic lookups, though. Unless maybe we added @PluginAliases for them >>>> :) >>>> >>>> >>>>> What would the config for a root logger look like? >>>>> >>>>> That one is already implicit in the code. If you configure a logger >>>> named "root", that's changed to "" and treated as the root logger. Probably >>>> deserves some documentation, though. >>>> >>>> >>>>> One more thing: do we still need the .name attribute? >>>>> This seems a bit redundant: >>>>> log4j2.appender.File.name <http://log4j2.appender.file.name/>=File >>>>> Perhaps better to remove it so we won't have to deal with cases like >>>>> this: >>>>> log4j2.appender.File.name <http://log4j2.appender.file.name/>=NotFile >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>> No, I guess not. But it could be optional because logger configs have >>>> long names. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2014/06/09, at 8:02, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I was thinking about that. It would make sense. >>>>> >>>>> I'm trying to figure out how to do this generically so that special >>>>> cases don't need to be created. This file format is very limited, that's >>>>> for sure. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8 June 2014 17:10, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> One thing you could do is remove the type attribute by doing: >>>>> >>>>> log4j2.appenders.STDOUT=Console >>>>> >>>>> Ralph >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 8, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> https://paste.apache.org/e4m6 >>>>> >>>>> Damn quick fingers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8 June 2014 15:57, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Actually, what I'm trying to do first is convert the log4j-test1 file >>>>> into a properties file before going anywhere with this. Basically, it'll >>>>> have to be more like the XML strict format. Here's how I've converted it >>>>> (as you can see, this file format sucks): >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8 June 2014 15:20, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So far it's awkward, but so was the original format. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8 June 2014 15:07, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ooops. Yes, XSL. The use of the XSL is to show that it's really >>>>> possible to convert an XML file into a flat file that's useable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Paul >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Of course XML is the better format. Like I said, I don't even use the >>>>> properties file format. However, plenty of people still do, so it seems >>>>> beneficial to allow it in some form. >>>>> >>>>> Do you mean an XSL file? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8 June 2014 14:21, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I still think XML is a better format. But if you do allow property >>>>> files, consider first an XSD file that converts XML to properties. Because >>>>> if you can accomplish that, you will have proven to yourself that the >>>>> property file can represent everything an XML file can. >>>>> On Jun 8, 2014 2:00 PM, "Matt Sicker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm only working on this because it sounds interesting and has been >>>>> requested by several people. I personally never use this file format in >>>>> Log4j 1, so I'm not entirely sure on how to best maintain compatibility or >>>>> similarity to the old format. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>>> >>> >>> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
