On Sunday, 8 June 2014, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > With xml, you'd wrap all <property ...> tags in a <properties> > encapsulating list element, but perhaps that is not needed in this format? > > So, instead of: > log4j2.properties.property.key=value > we could have: > log4j2.property.key=value > > I like it.
> Also (and this is just a matter of taste), can we use "appender" and > "logger" instead of the plural "appenders"/"loggers"? > > Also would prefer that. Both would require hard coded plugins instead of generic lookups, though. Unless maybe we added @PluginAliases for them :) > What would the config for a root logger look like? > > That one is already implicit in the code. If you configure a logger named "root", that's changed to "" and treated as the root logger. Probably deserves some documentation, though. > One more thing: do we still need the .name attribute? > This seems a bit redundant: > log4j2.appender.File.name=File > Perhaps better to remove it so we won't have to deal with cases like this: > log4j2.appender.File.name=NotFile > > > > Sent from my iPhone > No, I guess not. But it could be optional because logger configs have long names. > > On 2014/06/09, at 8:02, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > I was thinking about that. It would make sense. > > I'm trying to figure out how to do this generically so that special cases > don't need to be created. This file format is very limited, that's for sure. > > > On 8 June 2014 17:10, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > > One thing you could do is remove the type attribute by doing: > > log4j2.appenders.STDOUT=Console > > Ralph > > > On Jun 8, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > https://paste.apache.org/e4m6 > > Damn quick fingers. > > > On 8 June 2014 15:57, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually, what I'm trying to do first is convert the log4j-test1 file into > a properties file before going anywhere with this. Basically, it'll have to > be more like the XML strict format. Here's how I've converted it (as you > can see, this file format sucks): > > > > On 8 June 2014 15:20, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > So far it's awkward, but so was the original format. > > > On 8 June 2014 15:07, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ooops. Yes, XSL. The use of the XSL is to show that it's really possible > to convert an XML file into a flat file that's useable. > > > Cheers, > Paul > > > On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Of course XML is the better format. Like I said, I don't even use the > properties file format. However, plenty of people still do, so it seems > beneficial to allow it in some form. > > Do you mean an XSL file? > > > On 8 June 2014 14:21, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> wrote: > > I still think XML is a better format. But if you do allow property files, > consider first an XSD file that converts XML to properties. Because if you > can accomplish that, you will have proven to yourself that the property > file can represent everything an XML file can. > On Jun 8, 2014 2:00 PM, "Matt Sicker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm only working on this because it sounds interesting and has been > requested by several people. I personally never use this file format in > Log4j 1, so I'm not entirely sure on how to best maintain compatibility or > similarity to the old format. > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
