Do we need the builders?  As I said, I prefer only one way for creating plugins.

Ralph

On Jun 15, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote:

> I see. I agree that the original format is much nicer. 
> 
> Matt, do you think you can achieve this with the builders?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 2014/06/16, at 1:29, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> While you improved some of the existing messages, you really didm’t address 
>> what I wanted fixed. The previous debug logs would have had messages similar 
>> to:
>> 
>> Calling createLayout on class 
>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.PatternLayout for element PatternLayout 
>> with params(pattern="%d{HH:mm:ss.SSS} [%t] %-5level %logger{36} - %msg%n", 
>> Configuration(D:\rista\eclipsekws\.metadata\.plugins\org.eclipse.wst.server.core\tmp1\wtpwebapps\log4j2.0-test\WEB-INF\classes\test-log4j.xml),
>>  null, charset="null", alwaysWriteExceptions="null")
>> 
>> Calling createAppender on class 
>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.ConsoleAppender for element Console 
>> with params(PatternLayout(%d{HH:mm:ss.SSS} [%t] %-5level %logger{36} - 
>> %msg%n), null, target="SYSTEM_OUT", name="console", follow="null", 
>> ignoreExceptions="null")
>> 
>> Calling createAppenderRef on class 
>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.AppenderRef for element appender-ref 
>> with params(ref="console", level="null", null)
>> 2013-09-20 15:06:55,749 DEBUG Calling createLogger on class 
>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.LoggerConfig$RootLogger for element 
>> root with params(additivity="null", level="error", includeLocation="null", 
>> AppenderRef={console}, Properties={}, 
>> Configuration(D:\rista\eclipsekws\.metadata\.plugins\org.eclipse.wst.server.core\tmp1\wtpwebapps\log4j2.0-test\WEB-INF\classes\test-log4j.xml),
>>  null)
>> 
>> The current log emits stuff like:
>> 
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,432 DEBUG Building Plugin[name=layout, 
>> class=org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout]. Searching for builder 
>> factory method...
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,435 DEBUG No builder factory method found in class 
>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout.
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,435 DEBUG Still building Plugin[name=layout, 
>> class=org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout]. Searching for factory 
>> method...
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,436 DEBUG Found factory method [createLayout]: public 
>> static org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout 
>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout.createLayout(boolean,boolean,boolean,boolean,java.nio.charset.Charset).
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,436 DEBUG Generating parameters for factory method 
>> [createLayout]...
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,456 DEBUG Attribute(locationInfo="false") - no value 
>> specified, using default.
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,456 DEBUG Attribute(properties="false") - no value 
>> specified, using default.
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,457 DEBUG Attribute(complete="true") - no value 
>> specified, using default.
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,457 DEBUG Attribute(compact="false") - no value 
>> specified, using default.
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,457 DEBUG Attribute(charset="UTF-8") - no value 
>> specified, using default.
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,587 DEBUG Built Plugin[name=layout] OK from factory 
>> method.
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,588 DEBUG Building Plugin[name=appender, 
>> class=org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppender]. Searching for 
>> builder factory method...
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,588 DEBUG No builder factory method found in class 
>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppender.
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,589 DEBUG Still building Plugin[name=appender, 
>> class=org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppender]. Searching for 
>> factory method...
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,589 DEBUG Found factory method [createAppender]: public 
>> static org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppender 
>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppender.createAppender(java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,org.apache.logging.log4j.core.Layout,org.apache.logging.log4j.core.Filter,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.Configuration).
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,589 DEBUG Generating parameters for factory method 
>> [createAppender]...
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,595 DEBUG 
>> Attribute(fileName="target/XmlCompleteFileAppenderTest.log")
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,596 DEBUG Attribute(append="false")
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,596 DEBUG Attribute(locking="null")
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,596 DEBUG Attribute(name="XmlFile")
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,597 DEBUG Attribute(immediateFlush="false")
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,597 DEBUG Attribute(ignoreExceptions="null")
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,597 DEBUG Attribute(bufferedIo="null")
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,598 DEBUG Attribute(bufferSize="null")
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,598 DEBUG 
>> XMLLayout(org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout@5eef9f84)
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,598 DEBUG Attribute(advertise="null")
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,599 DEBUG Attribute(advertiseUri="null")
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,599 DEBUG 
>> Configuration(/Users/rgoers/projects/apache/logging/log4j/log4j2/trunk/log4j-core/target/test-classes/XmlCompleteFileAppenderTest.xml)
>> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,601 DEBUG Starting FileManager 
>> target/XmlCompleteFileAppenderTest.log
>> 
>> The previous format was a lot more compact as it essentially showed you the 
>> parameters being passed to the factory method in one line while identifying 
>> the class it came from and the configuration element that triggered it. The 
>> new log emits that info as individual lines with a few messages that are 
>> just noise.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 14, 2014, at 10:11 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> I've done some work on this, there may be more places to improve, I mainly 
>>> focused on PluginBuilder and PluginAttributeVisitor.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Yeah, I liked the prettier logging format. I was planning to add it back 
>>> in, but it appears as though I completely forgot about it! The "new" format 
>>> was a quick placeholder. I'll try and work on that this week.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10 June 2014 19:47, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Maybe Matt can shed a light on this?
>>> 
>>> Gary
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I don't know exactly what I would be vetoing.  I have no problem with some 
>>> of the refactoring. The commit(s) that changed the logging probably 
>>> happened weeks ago and I am just noticing now.
>>> 
>>> But yes, I want the logging aspect of the changes reverted back to what was 
>>> previously being done.
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>> On Jun 10, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Well, for Log4j Plugins, one way to configure should be plenty. I am OK 
>>>> with the factory method pattern, while it makes for some long signatures, 
>>>> I like that it is all in one place.
>>>> 
>>>> May I suggest a simple "-1" reply on the ML on the changes to logging? Do 
>>>> you feel a VETO is inappropriate here?
>>>> 
>>>> Gary
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I think the discussion was not on its own thread.  I thought there was 
>>>> agreement that there should be only one way to configure plugins.  I 
>>>> prefer the factory method simply because it would be a whole lot of effort 
>>>> to convert everything to a builder and I just don't think the benefit is 
>>>> worth the effort.
>>>> 
>>>> I spent a lot of time making the debug output "nice" and easily 
>>>> understandable so I am a bit upset that it was tossed and replaced with 
>>>> what you see below.
>>>> 
>>>> Ralph
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 10, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I am working on a new Appender and am noticing that the debug output is 
>>>>> now far less useful than it used to be. I used to see the factory method 
>>>>> being invoked with all of its parameters very nicely formatted.  Now I see
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,858 DEBUG No compatible method annotated with 
>>>>> interface 
>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.plugins.PluginBuilderFactory found 
>>>>> in class class org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender.
>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,858 DEBUG Found factory method class 
>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender.public static 
>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender 
>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender.createAppender(org.apache.logging.log4j.core.Layout,org.apache.logging.log4j.core.Filter,java.lang.String,java.lang.String).
>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,864 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class 
>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender
>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,864 DEBUG PatternLayout(%m%n)
>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,864 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class 
>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender
>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class 
>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender
>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Attribute(name="Servlet")
>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class 
>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender
>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Null string given to convert. Using default 
>>>>> [null].
>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,866 DEBUG Attribute(ignoreExceptions="null")
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is far more verbose, repetitive, and is nowhere near as clear as it 
>>>>> used to be.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can you please get the logging output back to the old format?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, can we change PatternLayout back to a factory and remove the 
>>>>> message about no builder factory being present?  
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think we need to decide how many ways there are to configure a plugin: 
>>>>> factory, builder, and whatever else we've been discussing. This is 
>>>>> getting quite confusing!
>>>>> 
>>>>> I thought we had a thread going on the topic already...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] 
>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] 
>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] 
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>> 
>> 

Reply via email to