Of course XML is the better format. Like I said, I don't even use the properties file format. However, plenty of people still do, so it seems beneficial to allow it in some form.
Do you mean an XSL file? On 8 June 2014 14:21, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > I still think XML is a better format. But if you do allow property files, > consider first an XSD file that converts XML to properties. Because if you > can accomplish that, you will have proven to yourself that the property > file can represent everything an XML file can. > On Jun 8, 2014 2:00 PM, "Matt Sicker" <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm only working on this because it sounds interesting and has been >> requested by several people. I personally never use this file format in >> Log4j 1, so I'm not entirely sure on how to best maintain compatibility or >> similarity to the old format. >> >> The technical side of parsing a flat properties map into a tree of Nodes >> isn't that difficult. I'm sure we all took data structures at some point in >> our lives ;) >> >> Due to the limitations of properties files, the format has to be slightly >> different than the usual hierarchy used in all the other formats. The key >> difference I'd say is that instead of the "name" attribute used on all the >> appenders and loggers, the name would be the child "node" of the appenders >> element. For instance: >> >> appenders.Name.attribute = ... >> appenders.Name.anotherAttribute = ... >> >> Of course, the keys would be converted to lower case for case >> insensitivity (which makes me think we could really use a >> CaseInsensitiveHashMap or something). >> >> The old format uses something more like: >> >> log4j.appender.Name.attribute = ... >> >> For consistency, I think this should be appenders, and we could use >> "log4j2" as the prefix (or even "configuration" for ultimate consistency). >> Thoughts? >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >> > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
