[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-3406?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17494146#comment-17494146
]
Piotr P. Karwasz commented on LOG4J2-3406:
------------------------------------------
[~rgoers],
Sorry, I was following the discussion of the shorthand notation, in multiple
tickets and PR's. Somehow I thought Gary was the author. I corrected my
previous comment.
Talking about authorship, the idea I explained was proposed by [~ckozak] in
[this
comment|https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/735#issuecomment-1027030918],
so I suppose he does not oppose it, but I'd like to hear other opinions.
Personally I hate the properties format too, but if the random identifiers gain
a meaning it will be more tolerable. Besides, the text properties format is
always better than the XML properties format. :D
> Implicit component names in the properties format
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LOG4J2-3406
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-3406
> Project: Log4j 2
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Configurators
> Affects Versions: 2.17.1
> Reporter: Piotr P. Karwasz
> Priority: Minor
>
> The properties configuration syntax requires a lot of additional properties
> to specify a component's name or type. On the other hand a lot of random
> identifiers must be generated to provide unique prefixes to each component in
> a list.
> I open this ticket to discuss the possibility of extending the properties
> format and use the unique identifier as default component's name. E.g. as an
> alternative to:
> {noformat}
> appender.<1234>.type = Console
> appender.<1234>.name = STDOUT
> {noformat}
> we might write:
> {noformat}
> appender.STDOUT.type = Console
> {noformat}
> This is already implemented for the {{<Properties>}} and {{<CustomLevels>}}
> elements, where the identifier *is* the name of the property.
> Given that [~rgoers]'s solution to LOG4J2-3341 introduced a real property
> {{levelAndRefs}} for the logger components, we might also allow identifiers
> containing dots for loggers (if the property ends in {{{}.levelAndRefs{}}}).
> To find the identifiers of all loggers we might use the following rule:
> * if there is a property {{logger.foo}} (these were ignored in 2.17.1),
> {{foo}} is an identifier and the property is equivalent to
> {{{}logger.foo.levelAndRefs{}}},
> * if there is a property {{{}logger.foo.name{}}}, {{foo}} is an identifier
> (this was the unique rule in 2.17.1),
> * if there is a property {{logger.foo.bar.baz.levelAndRefs}} or
> {{{}logger.foo.bar.baz.level{}}}, then {{foo.bar.baz}} is an identifier,
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
