Yeah, there are definitely assumptions made. My goal here was just to allow strictly more use cases than previously supported, including mine and those mentioned in the mailing list.

I'm not sure what the best/conventional way to handle this without those assumptions. Standardizing the appender name is one option. I also had thought about configuring the the appender name as a logviewer-specific variable in the YAML. It would mean that some folks would have to configure the appender name twice (once in the YAML and once in the logback XML) which is annoying, but maybe worth the flexibility for the few who need it.