logging-log4j-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Log4j2 Backwards Compatibility
Date Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:09:18 GMT
Nobody ever said XSLT is simple ;)

But the standard appenders and whatnot could probably be migrated to the
equivalent appenders in 2.x.

On 7 March 2016 at 10:04, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> I suspect it isn’t quite as simple as that. Many of the appenders use
> different parameters, class names aren’t specified any more, and the way
> parameters are specified is different.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Mar 7, 2016, at 8:52 AM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > There is no current support for the previous format, but the docs do give
> > examples on how to convert to the new format:
> >
> > http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/migration.html
> >
> > Patches are always welcome to add support for the old config format, but
> > it's non-trivial. The new formats are very similar to the old, so it's
> > probably not too hard. I bet an XSLT could be made to convert the XML
> > format automatically for most use-cases.
> >
> > On 7 March 2016 at 09:42, Daniel Walsh <walshd11@tcd.ie> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Log4j Usergroup,
> >>
> >> I have a question regarding support for the previous 1.x configuration
> >> files.
> >>
> >> I wish to upgrade the version of Log4j across my companies platform,
> >> however when we deploy our software we expose public logger xml files
> for
> >> our clients to customize as they wish, this means that in any
> pre-existing
> >> installation we upgrade we need to be able to support their personalized
> >> configuration, generally any action that would mutate a
> client-modifiable
> >> file is seen as a blocking issue , not to be attempted under any
> >> circumstance.
> >>
> >> I haven't seen any relevant documentation regarding support for the
> legacy
> >> configuration mode, even the 1.X adapter module looks as if it is
> intended
> >> as only a wrapper for the package name refactoring.
> >>
> >> Is support for the legacy configuration files currently possible using
> the
> >> latest release of Log4j2.x ?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Daniel
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message