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 to know what extensions we support. With the existing `ConfigurationFactory.getConfiguration` API (plus potentially a small addition for composite configs), they can cover all their use cases. The only real gap is an ergonomic way to build composite configurations; everything else can stay encapsulated inside Log4j Core. I'm happy to see that the nudge by @yybmion helped us to avoid yet another [peak of complexity](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yiye8lqh0Ig). @ppkarwasz, thanks so much for your patience along this conversation and helping with evaluating alternatives. I liked your proposal on changing `CF::gC` as you suggested in the paragraph I quoted. Would you mind sharing more details such that @yybmion can flesh it out further in a PR<sup>1</sup>? <sup>1</sup> I'm inclined to leave this PR as is for records, and implement the new `CF::gC` change in a separate PR. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
