Actually, I was planning on working on converting the JSON configuration to use JsonReader as soon as we get 2.17.2 released. There are just so many things worth fixing for this one that it is taking longer than I had hoped.
I will also be fixing the other things that require modules other than java.base. They are all pretty minor. Ralph > On Feb 16, 2022, at 11:31 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > We've had some conversations about this off and on, though I don't > think we've had any formal decision or discussion on it. For Log4j > 3.x, we'd like to make it so that log4j-api, log4j-plugins, and > log4j-core only require the java.base module with optional > dependencies allowed for certain plumbing that can't otherwise be made > required (e.g., optional OSGi dependency to allow for participating in > bundle installation lifecycle events, optional LMAX Disruptor > dependency for asynchronous loggers, that sort of thing). > > With this idea, though, we lose support for all our configuration > factories except for the builder API and the properties format (which > uses said builder API) as XML is supported by the java.xml module > while JSON and YAML are supported by an optional Jackson dependency > for each. Many of us are unsatisfied with the properties configuration > format as it's difficult to represent properties as a tree of nodes > (as all the other configuration formats are tree-like), so this seems > like a poor user experience to leave as the default. > > One idea proposed was to support JSON as a built-in configuration > format. We have JSON parsing code present in JsonTemplateLayout which > can be moved to either log4j-core or even log4j-api to support at > least one basic structured format. If moved to the API, it can even be > used for the PropertiesUtil enhancements proposed for configuring > LoggerContext-specific options and other defaults. This JSON approach > is probably the lightest way we can handle it without introducing a > more complex parser. > > Any other ideas? Objections to doing something along these lines? The > JSON parsing can be moved to log4j-api, log4j-plugins, or log4j-core, > depending on how widely used the format will be here.
