[logback-dev] [JIRA] Created: (LBCLASSIC-188) Make table andcolumn names overridable

[Ceki Gulcu]

I wish I had a good and short explanation why generics do not make sense 
here. As mentioned a little earlier, DBNameResolver provides a service 
to DBAppender. DBAppender has a DBNameResolver but does not store a 
collection of DBNameResolvers or process DBNameResolvers. Besides that, 
generics in Java are quite clumsy to use. More to the point and as you 
probably know already, generics get erased (type erasure) as explained in

   http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/generics/erasure.html

One cannot do much with java generics really. To be honest, I don't see 
the point of generics here. Anyway, what's your second idea?

On 26.02.2010 14:01, Durchholz, Joachim wrote:
>> I appreciate the input although considering that
>> DBNameResolver is a mere component of DBAppender, using
>> generics in this case is probably not the best design one can
>> come up with.
>
> The generic design allows subclasses of DBAppender to require (and be
> guaranteed to get) additional column names.
>
> E.g. LBCLASSIC-187 "extend table definition with columns for message
> parameters" will work with this. Enums won't, you can't extend the list
> of values in a subclass.
>
> The generics solution would also allow extensions in other directions.
> E.g. to provide additional table names, such as a separate table to
> normalize out message parameter values.
>
> Hope the feedback is still useful
> Jo
>
> P.S.: I've got a last proposal up my sleeve that's geared towards
> simplicity.
> But one at a time :)