logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: Working on support for the properties file format.
Date Sun, 08 Jun 2014 22:10:58 GMT
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 <boards@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://paste.apache.org/e4m6
> 
> Damn quick fingers.
> 
> 
> On 8 June 2014 15:57, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> 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 <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
> So far it's awkward, but so was the original format.
> 
> 
> On 8 June 2014 15:07, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org> 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 <boards@gmail.com> 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 <pbenedict@apache.org> 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" <boards@gmail.com> 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.
> 
> The technical side of parsing a flat properties map into a tree of Nodes isn't that difficult.
I'm sure we all took data structures at some point in our lives ;)
> 
> Due to the limitations of properties files, the format has to be slightly different than
the usual hierarchy used in all the other formats. The key difference I'd say is that instead
of the "name" attribute used on all the appenders and loggers, the name would be the child
"node" of the appenders element. For instance:
> 
> appenders.Name.attribute = ...
> appenders.Name.anotherAttribute = ...
> 
> Of course, the keys would be converted to lower case for case insensitivity (which makes
me think we could really use a CaseInsensitiveHashMap or something).
> 
> The old format uses something more like:
> 
> log4j.appender.Name.attribute = ...
> 
> For consistency, I think this should be appenders, and we could use "log4j2" as the prefix
(or even "configuration" for ultimate consistency). Thoughts?
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>


Mime
View raw message