Re: Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

JIRA issue for Log4j 1.x property substitution: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1792 On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Mikael Ståldal wrote: > I think that Log4j1ConfigurationConverter does not handle Log4j 1.x > property substitution correctly. Log4j 1.x let you override properties

Re: Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

Ralph, you can add yourself as a reviewer on GitHub by commenting on a line in the diff. It should offer you the ability to start a review then. On 18 January 2017 at 08:17, Apache wrote: > That will probably cover 80% of the use cases. Another option is to use a > proxy factory that reads the f

Re: Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

That will probably cover 80% of the use cases. Another option is to use a proxy factory that reads the file and determines if logger.rootLogger or logger.appender is present and routes to the Log4j1ConfigurationFactory if it is and the Log4j2 factory if it is not. Ralph > On Jan 18, 2017, at 6

Re: Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

FYI, it seems to me that if Log4j1ConfigurationFactory has SUFFIXES = { "log4j.properties"}, then it would not clash with log4j2.properties file but could still work as one of the automatic configuration factories. On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Mikael Ståldal wrote: > I think that Log4j1Confi

Re: Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

I think that Log4j1ConfigurationConverter does not handle Log4j 1.x property substitution correctly. Log4j 1.x let you override properties with Java System Properties, but Log4j 2.x only do that when you specify ${sys:key}. Right? So the converter needs to convert from ${key} to ${sys:key}, and al

Re: Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

For Log4j 1 config support, we need to go through the Log4j 1 appenders and see how to map them to Log4j 2 appenders, or reimplement in Log4j 2 if not possible to map. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1523 (Layouts are already done: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1522

Re: Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

Maybe Matt can describe how he got added as reviewer? I cannot test it myself since GitHub forbids review of your own PR:s. On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Apache wrote: > How do I add myself as a reviewer? > > Ralph > > On Jan 17, 2017, at 2:05 PM, Mikael Ståldal > wrote: > > OK, Pull Request

Re: Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

What is left to do on LOG4J2-1648 ? Only documentation? On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Apache wrote: > How do I add myself as a reviewer? > > Ralph > > On Jan 17, 2017, at 2:05 PM, Mikael Ståldal > wrote: > > OK, Pull Request here: > > https

Re: Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

How do I add myself as a reviewer? Ralph > On Jan 17, 2017, at 2:05 PM, Mikael Ståldal wrote: > > OK, Pull Request here: > > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/55 > > > On Jan 17, 2017 6:58 PM, "Matt Sicker"

Re: Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

I would like to do more on the Log4j 1 support but have been swamped at work. Should not be a showstopper for 2.8 though. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 18, 2017, at 4:11, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: >> I'm working on getting the Log4j Scala rep

Re: Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

About LOG4J2-1648, let's keep it open for now. Not sure if the extension point has been documented. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 18, 2017, at 1:43, Mikael Ståldal wrote: > > And what about LOG4J2-1648 ? > > Is that done, or is there anything left to do? > >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:20 PM,

Re: Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

OK, Pull Request here: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/55 On Jan 17, 2017 6:58 PM, "Matt Sicker" wrote: > Are you able to make a PR on GitHub for review? That'd be a neat way to > interactively review our own internal branches. Not sure if you need to do > it from a fork, though.

Re: Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > I'm working on getting the Log4j Scala repo set up independently from the > main Log4j repo (and doing Log4j Boot on the side; this will be released > independently, so don't worry about this blocking anything) and doing some > general site cl

Re: Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

Are you able to make a PR on GitHub for review? That'd be a neat way to interactively review our own internal branches. Not sure if you need to do it from a fork, though. On 17 January 2017 at 10:20, Mikael Ståldal wrote: > I think we should get LOG4J2-1748 and LOG4J2-1780 resolved before 2.8, I

Re: Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

And what about LOG4J2-1648 ? Is that done, or is there anything left to do? On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Mikael Ståldal wrote: > I think we should get LOG4J2-1748 and LOG4J2-1780 resolved before 2.8, I > have a branch out for review. > > >

Re: Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

I think we should get LOG4J2-1748 and LOG4J2-1780 resolved before 2.8, I have a branch out for review. On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > I'm working on getting the Log4j Scala repo set up independently from the > main Log4j repo (and doing Log4j Boot on the side; this will b

Remaining tasks for a 2.8 release

I'm working on getting the Log4j Scala repo set up independently from the main Log4j repo (and doing Log4j Boot on the side; this will be released independently, so don't worry about this blocking anything) and doing some general site cleanups and whatnot. For 2.8, the other non-core modules will m