Volkan pointed out that the issue number in the subject was wrong. Ralph
> On Dec 21, 2021, at 10:30 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > This ticket complains because ConfigurationFactory looks to see if a system > property named log4j.configuration is set. > If it is then it tries to initialize the configuration it points to as a > Log4j 1.x configuration using the PropertiesConfiguration I implemented. > > Unfortunately, this is the same property name that Log4j 1.x uses. I probably > thought it was a good thing at the time > but now that I think about it I believe it was a mistake. > > The Log4j 1.x compatibility is still marked experimental. So I would like to > propose that the property be renamed to log4j1.configurationFile. > It matches the format used for the Log4j 2 property but is clearly meant to > reference a Log4j 1.x configuration. This would require users > who are using the compatibility (if there are any) to change the system > property name but it would allow log4j 1.x to continue to function > if it is present in the app. > > I do have a concern. Is this going to somehow be renamed as > log4j2.log4j1.configurationFile by the properties system? That is ugly. > > Thoughts? > > Ralph