Hi Matt, Thank you for your reply. I agree with all you say. My desire is to offer a light-weight code path. I don't care about "liking" a format vs. another, it's just that properties are built in java.base.
Gary On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 6:51 PM Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not a fan of the properties format for the same reasons as Ralph. > I think we should try to support a structured format like JSON by > default as a JSON parser is fairly small to define when you don't need > fancy annotation-related features. > > The plugins module might seem heavy, but the large number of > additional lines of code that would be necessary in every plugin to do > all the same boilerplate would likely be far greater than the plugin > system. Just think of all the string conversion, null checks, empty > checks, deprecated static factory methods, and config files that would > end up looking like Spring beans.xml files, if the plugin system > didn't exist. This would just be thousands more lines for > auto-formatters to have fun with. > > While it'd be neat to just reuse another dependency for configuration > and dependency injection, what logging framework would that dependency > use? Also, any off-the-shelf DI framework will have far more features > than we need to parse a config file and create its graph of objects. > If there were something like a pico-guice type framework that we could > copy into the library like picocli, then that would be another story. > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 7:08 AM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Is a truly small core possible for 3.0? > > > > What I mean by that is that I'd like to run an app with log4j without an > > XML configuration, or JSON, or YAML, or the whole plugin infrastructure, > > scanning, or reading a plugin metadata db. Just a properties files. And > if > > I can only run with just a properties file, I should be able to run only > > with system properties. > > > > With the addition in master of a separate log4j-plugins module, on top of > > log4j-core, 3.0 is feeling heavier and heavier, an so complicated. > > > > I am not an fan of inventing a whole configuration and plugin system, I'd > > rather depend one even if it is copying it. It just feels like > > not-invented-here syndrome. > > > > As an aside, I have never liked that we have a jar called log4j-core but > on > > the web site it's called "Log4j Implementation", it's confusing. > > > > For 3.0, it would be nice to make it obvious that what depends on > java.base > > be in a module called log4j-base instead of core. > > > > Gary >
