Thanks for the heads up and sorry for the delay, it has been a busy week. I've merged the contribution, and I'm in the process of adding release notes and a regression test now.
-ck On Sat, Dec 7, 2019, at 02:33, Ralph Goers wrote: > Carter, > > If you are going to fix LOG4J2-2725 you need to do it quickly. I have been > applying patches this evening and will probably do some more tomorrow but may > start the release process tomorrow night or Sunday morning. > > Ralph > > > On Dec 2, 2019, at 10:16 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > If you like it you should really thank Mikael. His initial work on this > > gave me the idea how to do it. I wish he was able to contribute more these > > days. > > > > Ralph > > > >> On Dec 2, 2019, at 9:49 AM, Carter Kozak <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Ralph, > >> > >> Your work on log4j1 configuration compatibility looks fantastic! > >> I'd like to make sure the fix for LOG4J2-2725 goes into this release, if > >> the PR author doesn't reply in the next day or so I'll take care of it. > >> There are a couple related places I'd like to test for similar types of > >> leaks when the asynchronous queue is full. > >> > >> Best, > >> -ck > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, at 11:32, Ralph Goers wrote: > >>> I have finished all the work on new features I wanted to add for the next > >>> release. The latest feature I added is Log4j 2 will now support Log4j 1 > >>> xml and properties file configurations. I have flagged it as experimental > >>> - it either requires a system property to explicitly enable auto > >>> detecting log4j 1 config files or it requires the log4j.configuration > >>> system property to point to a log4j 1 configuration. Not all appenders > >>> are supported. For example, the Log4j 1 socket appender serialized the > >>> log event using Java serialization. We know that is a security risk and > >>> don’t recommend it. The JDBCAppender is Log4j 1 can’t be mapped to Log4j > >>> 2’s JdbcAppender and I didn’t want to bring in the actual appender code. > >>> But I think the support should be good enough for a lot of use cases. > >>> > >>> I will be going through PRs and Jira issues over the next couple of days > >>> to see what low hanging fruit there is. I need to do a release sometime > >>> this week though as I am planning to use some of these features at work. > >>> > >>> Ralph > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
