logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <c...@qos.ch>
Subject RE: new filters (was FW: cvs commit etc)
Date Tue, 11 Jun 2002 20:38:34 GMT
At 13:15 11.06.2002 -0700, you wrote:
> > >Ack!  I know there is a bug lurking there somewhere.  I
> > can't wait to find
> > >it. :-)
> >
> > Hint: It's not a logic bug. It is related JavaBeans introspection. A
> > test case soliciting a configurator should reveal the problem.
>Heh.  I know what you are talking about on the MatchFilterBase class.  When
>I did it, I was wondering if the Bean Property/OptionHandler would be able
>to deal with it.

Concretely, introspection cannot deal with a class having two setter
methods with the same name that differ only in parameter
type. Examples:

   setNoMatchReturnValue(String filterReturnValue)
   setNoMatchReturnValue(int filterReturnValue)

   setMatchReturnValue(String filterReturnValue)
   setMatchReturnValue(int filterReturnValue)

My guess is that NoMatchReturnValue and MatchReturnValue will not be
properly recognized as valid options by log4j configurators.

>I have written code myself that when the basic bean
>introspection fails (because there is no matching getter/setter) it falls
>back to searching and calling the desired version of the method directly.

That's an interesting approach. I had not thought of it.

>I'll be sure to work it out.  And the test case would not have caught this
>problem unless it was written to use a configuration file to set up the
>appender and filters.  I'm thinking that using a configuration file should
>be part of the test case to get full coverage.




Sign the petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/1234567b
I am signatory number 22106. What is your number?

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

View raw message