Ooops. Yes, XSL. The use of the XSL is to show that it's really possible to convert an XML file into a flat file that's useable.
Cheers, Paul On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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> >
