Honor ConfigurationFactory active state

[DragonFSKY]

Fixes #3896.

This change makes ConfigurationFactory active-state handling consistent:

• Factories expose their supported types regardless of active state.
• Inactive factories return null, and aggregate lookup does not invoke them to create configurations.
• Default resource discovery preserves the existing file-specific diagnostic for matching inactive factories and continues fallback lookup.
• JSON and YAML factories honor overridden isActive() implementations, while Log4j 1.x compatibility factories track the compatibility property dynamically.

Tests cover aggregate lookup paths, inactive-factory diagnostics and fallback, dynamic activation, overridden active state, and missing JSON/YAML dependencies. Existing Log4j 1.x configuration tests explicitly enable compatibility mode where required, and the affected OSGi package versions reflect the protected overrides.

Checklist

• Base your changes on 2.x branch if you are targeting Log4j 2; use main otherwise
• ./mvnw -pl log4j-core-test,log4j-1.2-api -am verify succeeds (the build instructions)
• Non-trivial changes contain an entry file in the src/changelog/.2.x.x directory
• Tests are provided

[ramanathan1504]

@DragonFSKY I've just taken a quick look at your PR and noticed there are multiple new test cases. Since it touches multiple files, please give us a little time. We will review it ASAP!

[ramanathan1504]

Result: with jackson-dataformat-yaml absent, getSupportedTypes() still returns the YAML suffixes, so today a log4j2.yaml match logs that ERROR naming the file and the likely cause. After this change the factory is skipped before that point and nothing is logged. Please log before the continue.

[DragonFSKY]

Thanks for catching this! I've fixed it. Please let me know if anything else needs adjusting.

[ramanathan1504]

@DragonFSKY don't use force push.it will completely clear the old review..Thanks

[DragonFSKY]

Thanks for the reminder, and sorry about that. I'll avoid force-pushing and keep any further review updates as separate commits. Since I had already squashed the branch before seeing your note, would you prefer that I leave it as is, or split the current change into two commits for easier review? I understand that this would require one more force-push, so I won't change the history unless you prefer it.

[DragonFSKY]

Thanks for the review. I’ve moved the active-state checks to the factory loops and applied the suggested diagnostic and changelog updates.