My 2cts would be that log4j2 or any configuration in karaf should be homogeneous with other config files. Since OSGi is .cfg (enriched properties) by design, I think it is better to stick to this or something very close *by default*. Making the config formats heterogeneous will make your tooling heterogeneous too or more complex at least which is not worth it in almost all cases.
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le mar. 28 déc. 2021 à 05:41, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> a écrit : > By the way, just a reminder: a good point about properties format in > pax-logging-log4j2 service is that it doesn’t require extra dependency. > Using xml/json format needs additional dependency/packages/bundles in the > Karaf distribution. > Just a side note. > > Regards > JB > > > Le 27 déc. 2021 à 19:33, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > I’ve created a proposal JIRA KARAF-7307 ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-7307 < > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-7307>) to track any specifics. > > > > As the subject mentions— I think it would be beneficial to users to > change the default configuration for log4j2 to XML (or maybe JSON). > > > > Notes: > > > > 1. Documentation for the properties format is fragmented and incomplete— > especially for advanced features such as routing, etc > > 2. XML format is the more natural format for log4j2 > > 3. Allow for developers targeting karaf runtime to use the same > log4j2.xml config file in their dev projects that is used in karaf runtime > (using a org.ops4j.pax.logging.cfg requires developers to add add’l > configuration to their code projects) > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > Matt > > > > > >
