That was for a properties file that is compatible with 1.2. What Matt is doing won't be compatible with that.
Sent from my iPad > On Jun 9, 2014, at 6:46 AM, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> wrote: > > I remember a ticket (dunno which one) being closed out as "Won't Fix" for the > properties format. Are you gong to reopen it since you're working on the > feature? > > > Cheers, > Paul > > >> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> 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]> >
