Thanks,
What I was thinking was that I would just like a more flexible way to specify
what should be included in the JSON. In its current form the JSON Layout just
creates a serialized version of a LogEvent. I would prefer it if users could
define the individual fields they want and what they should contain.
Ralph
> On Dec 23, 2019, at 3:17 PM, Volkan Yazıcı <volkan.yaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> As the author of log4j2-logstash-layout[1], I would like to share some
> thoughts on the plugin and its implications on Log4j 3.0 roadmap.
>
> - LogstashLayout is pretty stable in its feature set for the
> last year. That is, the advantages (customization, etc.)
> it offers over JsonLayout could very well be a guideline
> for the next generation of JsonLayout.
>
> - The demand for LogstashLayout's (almost) garbage-free
> nature in combination with the efficiency of initialization-time
> compiled schema showed that people are willing to employ
> logging in unanticipated domains. In particular, Nexia Home[2]
> is leveraging[3] the plugin for distributed tracing. Hence,
> performance matters, AFAIC.
>
> - Getting design right in terms of efficiency, can even yield
> advantage over future competitors. See how LogstashLayout
> beats the official Elastic Log4j 2.0 plugin for ECS[4].
>
> Ralph already delivers a tremendous amount of work for the project. If
> he or anyone else shares the blueprints in their minds for the next
> generation of {Xml/Json,Yaml}Layout, I would be more than happy to
> volunteer for the discussion and, more importantly, implementation.
>
> Best.
>
> [1] https://github.com/vy/log4j2-logstash-layout
> [2] https://www.nexiahome.com/
> [3] https://github.com/vy/log4j2-logstash-layout/issues/17
> [4] https://github.com/vy/log4j2-logstash-layout#performance
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 12:24 AM Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>> I am not particularly happy with the JsonLayout at the
>> moment as I think what it does is too limited. I’d like there
>> to be a lot more flexibility as to what the resulting JSON
>> should look like, not just dumping the log event.
>
