On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:27 AM, RB <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:26, Aaron Wiebe <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm a little concerned by the reference to rulesets in the input >> section of the example - there you've got an example of something >> being referenced before its been declared. That can also be >> confusing, even though I understand how that is being handled. > > Being a Perl bigot myself, I actually prefer this approach. It > eventually becomes less confusing - you only have to worry about scope > rather than both order and scope. Only those deeply attached to more > strict languages will find it confusing, and exercising that feature > would be entirely user-dependent.
Being a C bigot... ;) I don't really have a problem with forward references, but I think my objection is more to the fact that its an input that is declaring its ruleset, whereas I think it would be more logical to bind inputs to rulesets. ie, declare your inputs, your templates, your filters, and your actions, and tie them all together using rulesets. -Aaron _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com
