Why? Are you saying a programmatic API can’t call factory methods? I know that isn’t true.
Ralph On Jun 9, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > A groovy configuration would be rather groovy. That would be part of a > programmatic configuration API, and that itself I think is dependent on using > builders instead of factory methods for plugins. > > > On 9 June 2014 11:22, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > In this case it is won't fix because it just isn't possible to process 1.2 > configurations in 2.0. The components take different attributes and the > plugin system eliminates specifying classes. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 9, 2014, at 8:30 AM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We shouldn't close feature requests as won't fix. Someone may come along >> later and decide to implement it. >> >> It's ok to say no one is planning on working on the feature, and remind the >> submitter that patches are welcome. >> >> Scott >> >> Scott >> >> On Jun 9, 2014 6:46 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> >> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
