My motivation for dropping these modules are not merely due to the new JsonTemplateLayout, though rather reducing the maintenance burden. I "hypothesise" they are not used. For one, I cannot imagine a single use case for YAML layout. Second, AbstractJacksonLayout renders stack traces in a nested fashion — i.e., nested objects for JsonLayout, nested XML elements for XmlLayout. Such arbitrarily nested structures are difficult to interact with and no storage engine that I know of is able to index them sufficiently. Hence, given the way stack traces are rendered, I am pretty confident that nobody is looking at them.
If there is anybody out there using JsonLayout, I presume they can easily migrate to JsonTemplateLayout without breaking a sweat. If we receive complaints regarding XML and YAML layouts, we can re-introduce them easily. 3.0.0 release is a good opportunity to deprecate these modules. Otherwise we will need to maintain them for another ~5 years. @Gary, is it possible for you to figure out who was using XmlLayout? On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 4:38 AM Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > Volkan, I am fine with deleting those modules however that would require > that you make sure that you replace the existing Layouts with ones that use > JsonTemplateLayout templates, take the same configuration parameters and > produce the same results. > > In other words, when people move from 2.x to 3.x we want to minimize the > changes they have to make to their applications. All existing > configurations should continue to work. Custom Plugins should require > recompilation but nothing more. Hopefully that would cover 95% of our users. > > Ralph > > > On Dec 29, 2020, at 2:52 PM, Volkan Yazıcı <volkan.yaz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I propose deleting all the following 4 modules from master: > > > > log4j-layout-jackson > > log4j-layout-jackson-json > > log4j-layout-jackson-xml > > log4j-layout-jackson-yaml > > > > The most (only?) used one, JsonLayout, is, IMHO, superseded by > > JsonTemplateLayout. The rest, I believe, is not even used. If we happen > to > > receive requests, we can consider adding them again. Thoughts? > > > > Kind regards. > > > > *P.S.* No, I did not forget about the report on Online Drinks #1. I will > do > > that sometime this week. > > >
