logging-log4j-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Walsh <walsh...@tcd.ie>
Subject Re: Log4j2 Backwards Compatibility
Date Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:10:08 GMT
Was there a discussion at the outset of 2.X as to abandon support for the
pre-existing ( if laboriously heavy ) configuration files as they stood ?

A cost / benefit analysis ? It was obviously considered a blocking point to
design backwards compatibility modules for the re-factored codeline moving
under org.apache.logging.log4j

I imagine anywhere where detail has been omitted in the new versions I can
skip provided data in my Parser ( which at this point would be more a
Transformer as you mentioned its other requirements )

Additionally I expect it wouldn't be an insurmountable challenge to provide
sane defaults where details are lacking from the config files I'd be
reading.

On 7 March 2016 at 16:07, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org> wrote:

> Ditto. Ralph is right. It's not really about the format but the different
> classes and options.
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:04 AM, 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
> >
> >
>

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