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

Reply via email to