I just realize I never sent this thought...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:rsyslog-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Luis Fernando Muñoz Mejías
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 5:13 PM
> To: rsyslog-users
> Subject: Re: [rsyslog] RFC: On rsyslog output modules and support
> forbatchoperations


> > For the case given above, I could still simply pass in a single - now
> > longer - string (that makes it that attractive for the other db
> > plugins). However, that does not work for the omoracle interface.
> 
> For omoracle it's not good, indeed. Also, I don't think you want to
> maintain yet another way of passing messages to modules. IMHO, we have
> two orthogonal use cases:
> 
> a) the module wants all messages one by one and is happy with it (all
> modules but omoracle).
> 
> b) the module wants to handle the properties in big batches (omoracle).
> 
> IMHO, this is flexible enough for new developers to choose between easy
> and fast.

Plus there is the question of compatibility. I don't like to change an
interface once it is introduced. Granted, we have a small time frame now
where we can model the new "vector interface" - because so far it is in devel
only (and thus should not be considered immutable) and you are probably the
only user. But on the other hand, having two different modes may also make
sense:

a) string IF, single entry
b) string IF, multiple entry
c) vector interface, single vector
d) vector interface, multiple vectors

If I'd start from scratch, a+c would obviously not be needed, as multiple
includes n=1 (if well-crafte). But case a) is already in wide-spread use, no
chance to undo that. b) would definitely be useful (just think about the file
writer or TCP forwarding). So it probably is nice to have two options, well
and consistent defined, rather than a set of three values that map {a,b,d}.
At least this is my current school of thought...

Rainer

_______________________________________________
rsyslog mailing list
http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
http://www.rsyslog.com

Reply via email to