A truly minimal core that only supports properties is the API itself. Look into SimpleLogger.
— Matt Sicker > On Jan 26, 2022, at 18:29, Carter Kozak <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree with Gary about a truly minimal core (though I'm going to stay out > of the naming argument, it's one of the two hardest problems in CS). My > largest use-case doesn't involve parsing any sort of configuration -- it's > all programmatic. I'd benefit from the ability to run without any sort of DI, > plugin system, or configuration parser. > > -ck > >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022, at 18:50, Matt Sicker wrote: >> I'm not a fan of the properties format for the same reasons as Ralph. >> I think we should try to support a structured format like JSON by >> default as a JSON parser is fairly small to define when you don't need >> fancy annotation-related features. >> >> The plugins module might seem heavy, but the large number of >> additional lines of code that would be necessary in every plugin to do >> all the same boilerplate would likely be far greater than the plugin >> system. Just think of all the string conversion, null checks, empty >> checks, deprecated static factory methods, and config files that would >> end up looking like Spring beans.xml files, if the plugin system >> didn't exist. This would just be thousands more lines for >> auto-formatters to have fun with. >> >> While it'd be neat to just reuse another dependency for configuration >> and dependency injection, what logging framework would that dependency >> use? Also, any off-the-shelf DI framework will have far more features >> than we need to parse a config file and create its graph of objects. >> If there were something like a pico-guice type framework that we could >> copy into the library like picocli, then that would be another story. >> >>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 7:08 AM Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Is a truly small core possible for 3.0? >>> >>> What I mean by that is that I'd like to run an app with log4j without an >>> XML configuration, or JSON, or YAML, or the whole plugin infrastructure, >>> scanning, or reading a plugin metadata db. Just a properties files. And if >>> I can only run with just a properties file, I should be able to run only >>> with system properties. >>> >>> With the addition in master of a separate log4j-plugins module, on top of >>> log4j-core, 3.0 is feeling heavier and heavier, an so complicated. >>> >>> I am not an fan of inventing a whole configuration and plugin system, I'd >>> rather depend one even if it is copying it. It just feels like >>> not-invented-here syndrome. >>> >>> As an aside, I have never liked that we have a jar called log4j-core but on >>> the web site it's called "Log4j Implementation", it's confusing. >>> >>> For 3.0, it would be nice to make it obvious that what depends on java.base >>> be in a module called log4j-base instead of core. >>> >>> Gary >>
