I would more than likely be forced to utilize a parser rather than an XSLT to transform their pre-existing files.
Thanks for the info though. It'll be helpful when bringing the case for upgrade. Its a pretty dramatic modification to our codeline if done, 100's of poms owned by 10's of dev-teams / stakeholders with their own default logging configurations, not to mention every client-site extension of their default logging with further customizations. I'll put the case to my higher ups, and if given the go ahead then I'll have to invest in a way to interpret the pre-existing configuration. If you have any suggestions on where to start / entry points into the current configuration parser versus the 1.x one that would be appreciated. Dan On 7 March 2016 at 15:52, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > There is no current support for the previous format, but the docs do give > examples on how to convert to the new format: > > http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/migration.html > > Patches are always welcome to add support for the old config format, but > it's non-trivial. The new formats are very similar to the old, so it's > probably not too hard. I bet an XSLT could be made to convert the XML > format automatically for most use-cases. > > On 7 March 2016 at 09:42, Daniel Walsh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Log4j Usergroup, > > > > I have a question regarding support for the previous 1.x configuration > > files. > > > > I wish to upgrade the version of Log4j across my companies platform, > > however when we deploy our software we expose public logger xml files for > > our clients to customize as they wish, this means that in any > pre-existing > > installation we upgrade we need to be able to support their personalized > > configuration, generally any action that would mutate a client-modifiable > > file is seen as a blocking issue , not to be attempted under any > > circumstance. > > > > I haven't seen any relevant documentation regarding support for the > legacy > > configuration mode, even the 1.X adapter module looks as if it is > intended > > as only a wrapper for the package name refactoring. > > > > Is support for the legacy configuration files currently possible using > the > > latest release of Log4j2.x ? > > > > Thanks, > > Daniel > > > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >
