I suspect it isn’t quite as simple as that. Many of the appenders use different parameters, class names aren’t specified any more, and the way parameters are specified is different.
Ralph > On Mar 7, 2016, at 8:52 AM, 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]> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
