I remember a ticket (dunno which one) being closed out as "Won't Fix" for the properties format. Are you gong to reopen it since you're working on the feature?
Cheers, Paul On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sunday, 8 June 2014, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > >> With xml, you'd wrap all <property ...> tags in a <properties> >> encapsulating list element, but perhaps that is not needed in this format? >> >> So, instead of: >> log4j2.properties.property.key=value >> we could have: >> log4j2.property.key=value >> >> I like it. > > >> Also (and this is just a matter of taste), can we use "appender" and >> "logger" instead of the plural "appenders"/"loggers"? >> >> Also would prefer that. Both would require hard coded plugins instead of > generic lookups, though. Unless maybe we added @PluginAliases for them :) > > >> What would the config for a root logger look like? >> >> That one is already implicit in the code. If you configure a logger named > "root", that's changed to "" and treated as the root logger. Probably > deserves some documentation, though. > > >> One more thing: do we still need the .name attribute? >> This seems a bit redundant: >> log4j2.appender.File.name=File >> Perhaps better to remove it so we won't have to deal with cases like this: >> log4j2.appender.File.name=NotFile >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> > No, I guess not. But it could be optional because logger configs have long > names. > > >> >> On 2014/06/09, at 8:02, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I was thinking about that. It would make sense. >> >> I'm trying to figure out how to do this generically so that special cases >> don't need to be created. This file format is very limited, that's for sure. >> >> >> On 8 June 2014 17:10, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> https://paste.apache.org/e4m6 >> >> Damn quick fingers. >> >> >> On 8 June 2014 15:57, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> So far it's awkward, but so was the original format. >> >> >> On 8 June 2014 15:07, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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. >> >> > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >
