If the reason to do this is performance, it should be proved by a benchmark...
Gary On Jan 12, 2016 8:28 AM, "Gary Gregory" <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe something like mdcStyle="this/that/future"? > > This would also apply to the XML layout? > > Gary > On Jan 12, 2016 8:26 AM, "Mikael Ståldal" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Ah yes, that's possible. It would be nice. >> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> If there is a flag that causes the new structure to be generated then he >>> would get the performance gain when it is enabled. The current structure >>> would be generated when the flag is not set. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> On Jan 12, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Mikael Ståldal <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> But I guess that you won't get any performance gain if we keep the old >>> structure besides the new one, since then both will be parsed. >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Robin Coe <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree that if it were changed there may be some compatibility >>>> issues. But, if it's doable, then introducing a new property could bridge >>>> the change. Not saying it's doable, because I haven't looked, but a new >>>> property and a deprecation warning (in docs, I expect) would allow the >>>> change to happen. Very preliminary data showed me that parsing 1000 events >>>> slowed my parser from < 500 ms (w/o contextMap) to 2000 ms when each event >>>> contained 2 contextMap entries, requiring the list of maps to be converted >>>> to a single map. Not sure what the time would be to parse a multi-valued >>>> map, though, so I can't be sure of the overhead of walking the list >>>> wrapper. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Mikael Ståldal < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think that the current JSONLayout format is unfortunate, and I would >>>>> prefer to have it as you propose. But we cannot change it now since that >>>>> will break backwards compatibility. >>>>> >>>>> See: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-623 >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps GELFLayout would work better for you. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The point I was trying to make is that you cannot describe what you >>>>>> are asking for with a generic XML schema, not sure about JSON schema, but >>>>>> the idea is the same. Since we use Jackson, that also means we use the >>>>>> same >>>>>> code to emit JSON and XML. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gary >>>>>> On Jan 4, 2016 12:25 PM, "Robin Coe" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I can see that XML entities requires conforming to a schema but >>>>>>> isn't the writer implementation capable of wrapping the map entries when >>>>>>> required? Seems like it's making the JSON representation more complex >>>>>>> (and >>>>>>> less performant) at the cost of some wrapper code for the xml writer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected] >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, that is because we can define this kind of structure with >>>>>>>> XML/JSON schema with ease. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gary >>>>>>>> On Jan 4, 2016 11:55 AM, "Robin Coe" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was trying to deserialize a log event written by the JSONLayout >>>>>>>>> appender, which uses Jackson. I therefore also am using Jackson but >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> the MrBeanModule, which is a POJO materializer. After much >>>>>>>>> difficulty with >>>>>>>>> Jackson throwing deserialization exceptions with the "contextMap" >>>>>>>>> field, I >>>>>>>>> learned that the map is actually written out as a List of Maps (i.e. >>>>>>>>> List<Map<String,String>>. I've included one such event here, with >>>>>>>>> unnecessary fields shortened: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> {"timeMillis":...,"thread":"...","level":"OFF","loggerName":"...","message":"...","endOfBatch":false,"loggerFqcn":"...","contextMap":[{"key":"LOGROLL","value":"com.xxx.xxx.handler.event.FailoverHandler"},{"key":"ROUTINGKEY","value":"elasticsearch-rollover"}]} >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm curious why the contextMap is represented as the more complex >>>>>>>>> List of single entry Maps, as opposed to a single multi-valued Map? >>>>>>>>> So, >>>>>>>>> instead of something that looks like: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> {"contextMap":[{"key":"key1"},{"value":"value1"},{"key":"key2"},{"value":"value2"},...] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would expect the much simpler (and easily parseable): >>>>>>>>> {"contextMap":{"key1":"value1","key2":"value2",...}. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is this intended? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Robin. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> [image: MagineTV] >>>>> >>>>> *Mikael Ståldal* >>>>> Senior software developer >>>>> >>>>> *Magine TV* >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com >>>>> >>>>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this >>>>> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message >>>>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may >>>>> not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, >>>>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply >>>>> email. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> [image: MagineTV] >>> >>> *Mikael Ståldal* >>> Senior software developer >>> >>> *Magine TV* >>> [email protected] >>> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com >>> >>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this >>> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message >>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may >>> not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, >>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply >>> email. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> [image: MagineTV] >> >> *Mikael Ståldal* >> Senior software developer >> >> *Magine TV* >> [email protected] >> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com >> >> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this >> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message >> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may >> not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, >> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply >> email. >> >
