It certainly could, but is that different than saying that the XML format changed?
Personally, I have always found the properties format harder to understand. I just can't relate to the people who say they find the properties format easy to understand but find XML to be hard. I'd be far more interested in a Groovy configuration than a properties configuration. Sent from my iPad > On Jun 9, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, that the real support issue. If we say, '2.0 does not do properties', > that is better than saying '2.0 does properties, but different'. Won't THAT > will generate confusion? > > Gary > > >> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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]> >>> > > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > JUnit in Action, Second Edition > Spring Batch in Action > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
