No. I personally don't like the properties format so I've not implemented it. Others are welcome to, of course. Even so the format would not be identical as you no longer specify fully qualified class names in the configuration and many of the components have different configuration parameters than Log4j 1.x.
On Oct 19, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Zhu Wayne wrote: > That is a good news. Could I still use log4.properties instead of JSON or > XML format? > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Ralph Goers > <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>wrote: > >> The log4j 1.x adapter should allow an application that logs using log4j >> 1.x to run unchanged but log via log4j 2. However, the adapter has been >> updated since the beta2 release to contain more methods and classes that an >> application might use to configure log4j 1.x. Most of these will be no-ops. >> >> With the various adapters that are available you should be able to route >> all logging that uses SLF4J, Log4j 1.x or Commons Logging into Log4j 2. >> Integration with java.util.logging has not been done yet, primarily because >> both ways to do it kind of suck. That said, if you were to use the jul to >> SLF4J bridge even those would flow to Log4j 2 via the SLF4J binding. >> >> Ralph >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org
