This:
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/blob/5016b9522d58aedffd18def7d8300eec4637e330/log4j-plugins/src/main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/plugins/PluginAliases.java#L36
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/blob/5016b9522d58aedffd18def7d8300eec4637e330/log4j-core/src/main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/core/config/plugins/PluginAliases.java#L35

They should both work the same way as there's a generic strategy for
extracting the alias list.

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 1:39 PM Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I’m not sure what all that means Matt.
>
> After I changed the import for core.config.plugins to just plugins the build 
> ran fine. So PluginAliases are working, provided they use the annotation from 
> the plugins module.
>
> They just don’t work when using the annotation from core, which should work 
> to support backwards compatibility.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Jan 31, 2022, at 12:25 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Aliases aren't yet supported in the new DI system (well, the
> > new-new-DI system; the BeanManager version did have support for
> > aliases). There's an alias lookup strategy thing defined on the
> > plugins.PluginAliases annotation that might be missing on the core
> > version.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 12:49 PM Ralph Goers <[email protected]> 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> And nevermind again. The PluginAliases moved to the plugins module. I 
> >> changed that and those tests are now fine.
> >>
> >> However, that does point out a problem that any log4j 2 plugin with 
> >> pluginAliases is not going to work in log4j 3.0. We need to fix that.
> >>
> >> Ralph
> >>
> >>> On Jan 31, 2022, at 11:44 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I see. In release-2.x PatternLayout is annotated with @PluginAliases, one 
> >>> of which is EnhancedPatternLayout. Master also has that annotation but it 
> >>> is marked deprecated.
> >>>
> >>> Matt, did you break that annotation?
> >>>
> >>> Ralph
> >>>
> >>>> On Jan 31, 2022, at 11:35 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> 
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Gary,
> >>>>
> >>>> I would really like to know how you tested 
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/708. It references 
> >>>> EnhancedPatternLayout which is not present in the PR.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ralph
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Jan 31, 2022, at 5:01 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> 
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The branch master started to fail to build for me probably a week ago, 
> >>>>> but
> >>>>> it was not faliing for anyone else. I suspect my slow mac mini might 
> >>>>> have
> >>>>> been a factor in my failure as Matt's analysis points the finger at a
> >>>>> timing issue in plugin/loading concurrent code combined with the fact 
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> some of our tests run in parallel. Matt has been trying to fix this for 
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> while and now the build fails differently but not just on my machine, it
> >>>>> now also fails in GitHub.
> >>>>> :-(
> >>>>> Gary
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 12:50 AM Ralph Goers 
> >>>>> <[email protected]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I just pulled master and am unable to build it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [INFO] Running org.apache.log4j.config.PropertiesConfigurationTest
> >>>>>> 2022-01-30 22:39:47,046 main ERROR Unable to create Layout
> >>>>>> org.apache.log4j.EnhancedPatternLayout due to
> >>>>>> ClassNotFoundException:org.apache.log4j.EnhancedPatternLayout
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [ERROR] Tests run: 13, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time 
> >>>>>> elapsed:
> >>>>>> 0.473 s <<< FAILURE! - in org.apache.log4j.config.XmlConfigurationTest
> >>>>>> [ERROR]
> >>>>>> org.apache.log4j.config.XmlConfigurationTest.testConsoleEnhancedPatternLayout
> >>>>>> Time elapsed: 0.01 s  <<< FAILURE!
> >>>>>> org.junit.ComparisonFailure: expected:<%[d{ISO8601} [%t][%c] %-5p
> >>>>>> %properties %ndc: %]m%n> but was:<%[]m%n>
> >>>>>>     at
> >>>>>> org.apache.log4j.config.XmlConfigurationTest.testConsoleEnhancedPatternLayout(XmlConfigurationTest.java:115)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ralph
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>

Reply via email to