Maybe something like mdcStyle="this/that/future"? This would also apply to the XML layout?
Gary On Jan 12, 2016 8:26 AM, "Mikael Ståldal" <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah yes, that's possible. It would be nice. > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> If there is a flag that causes the new structure to be generated then he >> would get the performance gain when it is enabled. The current structure >> would be generated when the flag is not set. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Jan 12, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Mikael Ståldal <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> But I guess that you won't get any performance gain if we keep the old >> structure besides the new one, since then both will be parsed. >> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Robin Coe <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I agree that if it were changed there may be some compatibility issues. >>> But, if it's doable, then introducing a new property could bridge the >>> change. Not saying it's doable, because I haven't looked, but a new >>> property and a deprecation warning (in docs, I expect) would allow the >>> change to happen. Very preliminary data showed me that parsing 1000 events >>> slowed my parser from < 500 ms (w/o contextMap) to 2000 ms when each event >>> contained 2 contextMap entries, requiring the list of maps to be converted >>> to a single map. Not sure what the time would be to parse a multi-valued >>> map, though, so I can't be sure of the overhead of walking the list wrapper. >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Mikael Ståldal < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I think that the current JSONLayout format is unfortunate, and I would >>>> prefer to have it as you propose. But we cannot change it now since that >>>> will break backwards compatibility. >>>> >>>> See: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-623 >>>> >>>> Perhaps GELFLayout would work better for you. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The point I was trying to make is that you cannot describe what you >>>>> are asking for with a generic XML schema, not sure about JSON schema, but >>>>> the idea is the same. Since we use Jackson, that also means we use the >>>>> same >>>>> code to emit JSON and XML. >>>>> >>>>> Gary >>>>> On Jan 4, 2016 12:25 PM, "Robin Coe" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I can see that XML entities requires conforming to a schema but isn't >>>>>> the writer implementation capable of wrapping the map entries when >>>>>> required? Seems like it's making the JSON representation more complex >>>>>> (and >>>>>> less performant) at the cost of some wrapper code for the xml writer. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, that is because we can define this kind of structure with >>>>>>> XML/JSON schema with ease. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gary >>>>>>> On Jan 4, 2016 11:55 AM, "Robin Coe" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was trying to deserialize a log event written by the JSONLayout >>>>>>>> appender, which uses Jackson. I therefore also am using Jackson but >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> the MrBeanModule, which is a POJO materializer. After much difficulty >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> Jackson throwing deserialization exceptions with the "contextMap" >>>>>>>> field, I >>>>>>>> learned that the map is actually written out as a List of Maps (i.e. >>>>>>>> List<Map<String,String>>. I've included one such event here, with >>>>>>>> unnecessary fields shortened: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> {"timeMillis":...,"thread":"...","level":"OFF","loggerName":"...","message":"...","endOfBatch":false,"loggerFqcn":"...","contextMap":[{"key":"LOGROLL","value":"com.xxx.xxx.handler.event.FailoverHandler"},{"key":"ROUTINGKEY","value":"elasticsearch-rollover"}]} >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm curious why the contextMap is represented as the more complex >>>>>>>> List of single entry Maps, as opposed to a single multi-valued Map? >>>>>>>> So, >>>>>>>> instead of something that looks like: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> {"contextMap":[{"key":"key1"},{"value":"value1"},{"key":"key2"},{"value":"value2"},...] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would expect the much simpler (and easily parseable): >>>>>>>> {"contextMap":{"key1":"value1","key2":"value2",...}. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is this intended? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Robin. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> [image: MagineTV] >>>> >>>> *Mikael Ståldal* >>>> Senior software developer >>>> >>>> *Magine TV* >>>> [email protected] >>>> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com >>>> >>>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this >>>> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message >>>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may >>>> not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, >>>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply >>>> email. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> [image: MagineTV] >> >> *Mikael Ståldal* >> Senior software developer >> >> *Magine TV* >> [email protected] >> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com >> >> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this >> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message >> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may >> not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, >> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply >> email. >> >> >> > > > -- > [image: MagineTV] > > *Mikael Ståldal* > Senior software developer > > *Magine TV* > [email protected] > Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com > > Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message > (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not > copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, > you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply > email. >
