On June 15, 2016 at 12:07:32 AM, Christian Schulte (c...@schulte.it) wrote: Am 06/15/16 um 00:17 schrieb Jason Dillon: > Making the colors configurable seems like a lot of overhead for what is > otherwise fairly simple. > > I’d recommend leaving the colors asis for now, get this out to let users > actually make use of it, and then consider adding complexity later to make > colors configurable. > > I don’t see a clean way to make colors configurable w/o adding some sort of > layer to make color names abstracted to symbols, which means adding > additional logic to resolve the color symbol name to real color, and likely a > completely different api to render text with these abstract names. >
Isn't this the job of the terminal in use? It can map the ANSI colors to something different already, I think. That would only work to change all instances of a standard ANSI color to another. Not to customize what the colors of various bits are. For example if you like [INFO] as green, but someone else likes [INFO] as blue ( https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/e7a783db1f577a340a91f6c958f1b9319c52c176 ). Using the terminal here could only change any use of fgGreen to whatever color you preferred, not just specifically the [INFO] segment. And if folks really just want any use of green to become blue, then yes you can do that now and there is no reason to change anything further. Though I kinda doubt that is what folks want when then think about customization of colors. I expect folks really want more control over “logger-level-info” is blue or green, similar to how IDEA or Eclipse can let you configure colors based on context, and not simply doing color replacements (i.e. everything green is now blue). —jason
