So far it's awkward, but so was the original format.
On 8 June 2014 15:07, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > 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> >> > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
