I agree with Ralph that we should at least be able to read the old format, even if we start to write (and read) a new format.
Should we keep the name of this cache file the same? I guess we need to work out our policy on what to do if a jar contains both the plugins.dat in the old format and a plugin cache file in the new format. Or when the classpath has multiple plugin cache files spread out over multiple jars. It might be helpful for future evolution if the plugin cache file contains a format version number. On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Of course. Something structurally equivalent would be my preference. > > > On 28 August 2014 00:15, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > >> Yes, we do. Anyone who has created plugins will already have a jar with >> a file in it. Requiring them to recompile to upgrade Log4j is a >> compatibility breakage. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Aug 27, 2014, at 10:09 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >> >>> You would have to support both the old and new format. >>> >> >> I do not think we have to be that cute, do we? >> >> Gary >> >> >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 8:23 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> This idea came up in a recent bug report: >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-798 >>> >>> I'm thinking that we could do something that either works well when you >>> cat together various plugin cache files, or if it were an XML file dump, >>> then we could have a tool to combine them together to address this other >>> issue: >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-673 >>> >>> >>> On 28 July 2014 15:34, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Good points. I guess I can just wait to see if anyone wants such a >>>> feature. It would certainly make shading easier, but I don't like to >>>> encourage that anyhow. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 28 July 2014 15:22, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I equate “human editable” with “error prone”. >>>>> >>>>> I’d wait until someone actually requests this with a real live use >>>>> case before I’d want it implemented. I’m not sure what the benefit is of >>>>> “disabling” a plugin. It is automatically “disabled” if it isn’t >>>>> referenced in the configuration. >>>>> >>>>> Ralph >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So our current format works quite well for automated tool usage. If >>>>> you don't already know, it's basically a serialized HashMap containing >>>>> class names and the attributes from the @Plugin annotation associated with >>>>> each class. Normally, this file is generated through the Java compiler via >>>>> an annotation processor. However, languages like Scala, Clojure, Groovy, >>>>> and whatever others that exist that don't create intermediate Java code >>>>> don't support annotation processing. Thus, the resurrection of the runtime >>>>> package scan functionality. >>>>> >>>>> What I'd like to propose would be some sort of human-editable plugin >>>>> file format for those who may prefer to create their own. It would be nice >>>>> for being able to customize your Log4j distribution by enabling and >>>>> disabling plugins selectively. >>>>> >>>>> As a Java guy, I'd propose an XML format because that's what everyone >>>>> else does. Plus, there's the XML APIs already, so no custom file format >>>>> processors or anything are necessary. >>>>> >>>>> Note that the serialized file would still be preferred as the way to >>>>> go since it's already there and supported. However, offering an >>>>> alternative >>>>> would be neat. Plus, the annotation processor could be extended to >>>>> generate >>>>> the XML (or whatever) file. >>>>> >>>>> ============ >>>>> >>>>> Alternatively, a neat idea could be to use the ServiceLoader class >>>>> from JDK 1.6+. The various plugin types (Appender, Filter, Layout, >>>>> PatternConverter, etc.) could all be services, and we can load all the >>>>> provided implementations. We could also simply extend this idea by filling >>>>> the service provider file with a list of packages to scan instead of >>>>> forcing the configuration file to specify where they are. This could be a >>>>> simpler approach for internal plugins. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >> 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 <boa...@gmail.com> >
