One thing you could do is remove the type attribute by doing: log4j2.appenders.STDOUT=Console Ralph
On Jun 8, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > https://paste.apache.org/e4m6 > > Damn quick fingers. > > > On 8 June 2014 15:57, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually, what I'm trying to do first is convert the log4j-test1 file into a > properties file before going anywhere with this. Basically, it'll have to be > more like the XML strict format. Here's how I've converted it (as you can > see, this file format sucks): > > > > On 8 June 2014 15:20, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
