[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       log4j-dev
Subject:    [jira] [Issue Comment Deleted] (LOG4J2-952) FAQ: How do I configure log4j2 programmatically in code 
From:       "Bart S. (JIRA)" <jira () apache ! org>
Date:       2015-08-30 18:13:46
Message-ID: JIRA.12774177.1423655285000.205677.1440958426199 () Atlassian ! JIRA
[Download RAW message or body]


     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-952?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel \
]

Bart S. updated LOG4J2-952:
---------------------------
    Comment: was deleted

(was: You have an issue with actually thinking about something. Or really thinking it \
through. I guess that is pretty common in open source and it is the reason why most \
open source is so bad.

You want me to adjust to your style of thinking, terse and to the point and quick and \
start coding right away and if there are no more complaints, commit it and go on with \
it.

If I hadn't written down these thoughts, I could not have thought them, and if I did \
not think them, I would not be now at the point that I want to write an example or \
alternative test solution or case myself. You seem to think that life proceeds when \
you constantly try to hinder it, but that doesn't work for me. I experience \
constantly, much less here, that my contributions are not welcome because they are \
too verbose for the people that want to get on with doing what they have been doing \
for centuries, often without any reflection on their part or understanding of what \
they're really doing.

There is a great hate in open source against actual thinking. People do not like to \
think. They only like to act. To perform. To put in effort with their hands. But the \
effort with their minds is discontinued, cut short. Most open source architecture is \
of really poor design. Most teams spend very little time thinking. They want short \
directions. Tell me what to do?. Please, don't make me have to think about it. Just \
tell me what to do, and I will do it!. Gary is one of those people that likes to be \
told what to do, but at the same time he enjoys thought as well. I really like Gary \
around here and he's funny, has a good humour, is always positive and sees the bright \
side of things. But you are constantly telling me that you don't have time.

Or you just don't want another influence on the team, but that might also just be the \
reason..... Now you're even threatening me with exercising your superior powers. To \
get it the way you want. We call that "power corrupts". You abuse your position to \
cut short a contribution that might threaten your position. You did it to that \
Behrooz guy as well. There's really little wonder that we haven't heard from him \
again. You create your own solution with your superior knowledge (accept it, you are \
much better versed in your software than everyone else) and you can create a solution \
to this problem that is acceptable to many at the surface and you can ensure that it \
gets through and the others don't, more or less. What's the point for him to continue \
his work if you do not engage in debate but simply push your own solution as a \
competitor?. You tell him his solution might be preferable but you're now already \
talking of committing the thing you have written. I take it to mean you are \
committing to master, or whatever. There was not a chance for that poor guy to get \
his work done. I don't mind it so much, I can still work with you, but you didn't \
throw my work to the bathwater, so to speak.

Of course he is suspect and not very eager to continue the work if the chance is very \
high that you will simply commit yours and there won't be a real interest from your \
side of the story for anything else. You have just presented your solution and that's \
that.

But you're also the one with commit rights and the one who can get it done in no \
time. So little chance for anyone else, while it was really other people's ideas that \
started this and you've just taken it from there.

I don't really know why you're doing it like this, but I guess that is not my problem \
or my thing to know about.

I just know that you're not helping here and your comments about short thinking are \
not sincere. It's more about your position (or anyone else's) than anything else. \
It's pretty blatantly obvious that what I've written cannot be summarized in 10 lines \
unless I throw almost everything out, and the chances of then any of it making it \
through to anything worthwhile, diminish greatly, and that is of course what you want \
from me. ?.

You will also not know the rationale, and why such a thing should be done. You've \
consumed my rationale in the past and done your thing with it, while at the same time \
trying to discount it all the same. It is pretty clear that without my input and \
those of others perhaps, this topic would not have started and you would not even \
have gotten the idea to implement this thing.

I've been a huge contribution or at least a driver to the interest in getting this \
done in the first place and so has Behrooz of course, in that slight way of \
introducing a competitor or alternative. And even though that's true, you seek to \
curtail my efforts to get something better done than this. You want to talk about the \
details; the larger plan is already set for you. You don't even know if anyone is \
waiting for this. It doesn't really coincide with the interests of those who started \
this. You think your solution should qualify for them, but.....

But your solution does (I believe) change ConfigurationFactory and that means it gets \
deeply embedded in the system, there is also not any room for an alternative that I \
vied for. You just don't think and just do what you want. Maybe that's your right, \
but it's also my right to want to change your mind about it ;-).

But it's pretty damn clear that you're only saying these things because you don't \
want any form of competition. It's not that it's too long, it's more that it doesn't \
suit you. If you can curtail my messages to be 10 lines long, I'd be no more any \
threat. I'd just be a bystander with no influence and you can just go along your way. \
Happy cruisin.

My contribution is just not welcome, well, then say so, instead of being so insincere \
about it. You don't have a problem with the length, you have a problem with the \
content. And the content is not welcome. People usually give insincere reasons for \
not wanting something, when they just want to be rid of it. They will tell you you're \
not polite enough. But they really don't want to hear your truth. The truth can be \
inconvenient, as mr. Gore put it. It's pretty clear that I can not say the same stuff \
in 10 lines, so my message becomes completely ineffective and doesn't relay the same \
ideas. And that's just a way to eliminate someone. And you know that full well. And I \
cannot work in this environment if my contributions are not welcomed, certainly not \
for the reasons you give me, because if I supply patches they are also not considered \
and accepted. So the thought that you wanted me to do work, or actually contribute \
code, is also not sincere. That's not it. You just want me out of the way really, at \
least partly, modestly. How can that not be true?.

There is a Jira here [LOG42-1093|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1093] \
that I contributed 15 days ago with a patch open for feedback. No one even gave \
feedback except for Gary, slightly, by the side. As to why we're uncertain as to how \
to proceed. And I can understand that. But still getting no replies is not sincere.

So you were exposed there, so to speak. (In Dutch we say "fall through the basket"). \
It's not about contributing code and it's not about being concise, it's just about \
you not really welcoming my work. Well, that can be true. Then say so, if it is. Then \
we can work with that or I can leave in whatever way you deem suitable.

I don't want to supersede you or sidestep you, this is your project and I only want \
to help if it's welcome. What use is there doing anything if it's going to be \
rejected anyway?.

So I mean, take your call, make your bet. Tell me what you want. But don't give me \
that crap about changing my style of thinking or my style of writing. I will not do \
that for anyone and I cannot do it in any case without severely sacrificing my joy \
and pleasure in doing it in the first place. And you don't want that either, because \
an unhappy person won't be around for long anyway. So then what you got? Is that what \
you want?..... You can only make people leave this way, but apparently that was your \
indication in the first place?????.

Well, then be more upright about it. We will all benefit in that way.

Regards, and signing out again. Bart.

)

> FAQ: How do I configure log4j2 programmatically in code without a configuration \
>                 file?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
> Key: LOG4J2-952
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-952
> Project: Log4j 2
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: API, Configurators, Documentation
> Affects Versions: 2.1
> Reporter: Joe Merten
> Attachments: LOG4J2-952-2.patch, LOG4J2-952-3.patch, LOG4J2-952-4.patch, \
> LOG4J2-952.patch 
> 
> I found [this link|http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/faq.html#config_from_code] \
> which said: {quote}
> You could use the static method #initialize(String contextName, ClassLoader loader, \
> String configLocation) in org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.Configurator. (You \
> can pass null for the class loader.) Be aware that this class is not part of the \
> public API so your code may break with any minor release. {quote}
> This documentation is unclear because it points to a member function which needs a \
> filename {{configLocation}} where as the topic is  »without a configuration file «. \
> It shoud rather point to the member function \
> {{org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.Configurator.initialize(ClassLoader loader, \
> ConfigurationSource source)}}. Example:
> {code:java}
> import org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.ConfigurationSource;
> import org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.Configurator;
> final String hardCodedXmlConfig =
> "<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>\n" +
> "<Configuration status='INFO'>\n" +
> "  <Appenders>\n" +
> "    <Console name='Console' target='SYSTEM_OUT'>\n" +
> "      <PatternLayout pattern='%d{HH:mm:ss.SSS} [%t] %-5level %logger{36} - \
> %msg%n'/>\n" + "    </Console>\n" +
> "  </Appenders>\n" +
> "  <Loggers>\n" +
> "    <Root level='debug'>\n" +
> "      <AppenderRef ref='Console'/>\n" +
> "    </Root>\n" +
> "  </Loggers>\n" +
> "</Configuration>\n";
> try {
> Configurator.initialize(null, new ConfigurationSource(new \
> ByteArrayInputStream(hardCodedXmlConfig.getBytes()))); } catch (IOException e) {
> e.printStackTrace();
> }
> {code}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]