On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 10:31, Andrea Aime <andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it> wrote:
> Hi, > months ago Jody wrote a proposal to upgrade Log4j to the latest version > (2.x), the proposal is still here > but has had little discussion and no voting: > https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-167 > > Upgrading log4j has little problems code wise, the API is a bit different, > but not so much, and it affects > only projects using it directly, that is, geowebcache and maybe geofence. > It is also supposed to be faster > and have more options, like asynch logging, so I'd be personally happy to > see it happening. > > The main issue with the upgrade is that log4j 2 is a complete rewrite and > it uses a rather different configuration > syntax, which means, we'll have to change how logging is configured in the > data directory. > > Currently log4j2 supports different configuration syntaxes: > > - XML: > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/configuration.html#XML > - JSON: > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/configuration.html#JSON > - YAML: > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/configuration.html#YAML > - Properties: > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/configuration.html#Properties > > The properties syntax is not the same as log4j 1.x and there is no > facility to migrate from the old config files, > here we'll have to make a backwards incompatible change. > > Now, which config syntax to use for the new system? > There is a debate on gitter, so far with two camps: > > - Kevin dislikes properties and would like to use YAML > - Ian would prefer properties over YAML. > > To be clearer I actually said XML, properties over json, yaml (with a real dislike of the last 2 as they aren't native to java). > > - I just hate YAML in a most irrational, from the bones out, complete > way, and will take anything but it, with a preference for property files > > Migration wise, I believe the easiest thing would be to have a different > log configuration directory, e.g., from "logs" to "logging" (to match the > config file > that controls the logging configuration), and if empty or missing, we'd > fill it with the config files form the WAR, like we do today. > Using a different folder I also hope we'd be free to accept whatever > config syntax (to be verified) with no conflicts and the discussion > about would be limited to what we use for the default config file samples. > > That sounds like the best plan, is it possible to let users pick and chose the format they use if we provide a default in one or the other? Ian
_______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel