Hi You mean org.ops4j.pax.logging config PID right (so today etc/org.ops4j.pax.logging.cfg).
It’s already possible to refresh a log4j XML in org.ops4j.pax.logging. So basically, etc/org.ops4j.pax.logging.cfg just contain the location of the log4j.xml. I think it’s good enough. My point is that, if you proposal is to have etc/org.ops4j.pax.logging.xml instead of etc/org.ops4j.pax.logging.cfg, that should be optional, and I think it’s not a good idea. I still prefer to have an indirection where etc/org.ops4j.pax.logging.cfg points to log4j XML or JSON file. Regards JB > Le 28 déc. 2021 à 17:32, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > @JB- To be clear, the request is for the log4j2 config file to be in xml or > json, not supporting json or xml log formats > > @Romain- I think heterogenous is a great goal— however, with complex > hierarchal configurations, the “simplicity” of properties is lost in the > structure. Default Log4j2 as properties is illegible by any UX/DX standard. > As with features, having structured format (ie xml) for complex data is more > manageable. > > The Developer Experience (DX) gap here is dev-on-laptop writing a simple REST > service/camel route, etc and then deploying to karaf has a very different > experience with logging. This is especially true for developers without a lot > of experience and/or are new to karaf. > > My suggestion is about trying to unify the log4j2 property file so dev laptop > to running karaf has the same default and therefore the same DX. > > -Matt > >> On Dec 28, 2021, at 1:55 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> My 2cts would be that log4j2 or any configuration in karaf should be >> homogeneous with other config files. Since OSGi is .cfg (enriched >> properties) by design, I think it is better to stick to this or something >> very close *by default*. >> Making the config formats heterogeneous will make your tooling >> heterogeneous too or more complex at least which is not worth it in almost >> all cases. >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> >> | >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> >> >> >> Le mar. 28 déc. 2021 à 05:41, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> a >> écrit : >> >>> By the way, just a reminder: a good point about properties format in >>> pax-logging-log4j2 service is that it doesn’t require extra dependency. >>> Using xml/json format needs additional dependency/packages/bundles in the >>> Karaf distribution. >>> Just a side note. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>>> Le 27 déc. 2021 à 19:33, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>> >>>> I’ve created a proposal JIRA KARAF-7307 ( >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-7307 < >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-7307>) to track any specifics. >>>> >>>> As the subject mentions— I think it would be beneficial to users to >>> change the default configuration for log4j2 to XML (or maybe JSON). >>>> >>>> Notes: >>>> >>>> 1. Documentation for the properties format is fragmented and incomplete— >>> especially for advanced features such as routing, etc >>>> 2. XML format is the more natural format for log4j2 >>>> 3. Allow for developers targeting karaf runtime to use the same >>> log4j2.xml config file in their dev projects that is used in karaf runtime >>> (using a org.ops4j.pax.logging.cfg requires developers to add add’l >>> configuration to their code projects) >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Matt >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >
