I still don't think the effort is warranted to support .properties file. Tooling isn't available for auto-complete and it's more prone to error than XML/XSD. What's the driver behind another format? I just see more development effort, which you guys need to think about is your time worth it. Also you'll have to keep in sync the multiple configurations -- making sure adding a feature in XML is also supported elsewhere. I don't want to be a "Debbie Downer", especially since Apache is all about "if you have an itch, scratch it". Matt, I guess this is your itch :-) I just want to reiterate why I think it could just mean more support time.
Cheers, Paul On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > If we support .properties, what is going to be the story for 1.2 users? > The first question will likely be: why can't I use my 1.2 .properties file > with 2.0. Even if we do not support 1.2 files, we need to document how to > port I would think. > > Gary > > > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> 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 <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, 8 June 2014, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> 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 <boa...@gmail.com> 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 <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> 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 <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. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> > > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >
