Hi,
the only argument against XML I can think of is, that syntax error's might
happen more often.
But if you see XML as an advanced configuration language, this would be fine.
Besides that I would allow and support multiple methods to express the
parameters like in this sample:
<input name=inp10515 type=imtcp>
<params listen="10514">
<param id="ruleset">remote10514</param>
</params>
</input>
For having only a few parameters, it is fine to have the parameters as
XML-Node properties, but if you have more than a few parameters, the view is
more readable if each parameter has its own XML-Node.
Regards,
Andre
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:rsyslog-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards
> Sent: Montag, 21. Juni 2010 14:41
> To: rsyslog-users
> Subject: Re: [rsyslog] feedback requested: NEW rsyslog.conf format -- XML?
>
> Hi all,
>
> thanks again for the good feedback. Please keep it flowing, I guess we will
hit
> a first milestone very soon. Then, I think, we have a format that we could
> work towards and begin to look at some details.
>
> I have now condensed the comments and thought about them. Then, I have
> looked at some ways how config files could actually look like. What then
hit
> me was that we are very close to how XML looks. For example we had:
>
> <input name=inp10515 type=imtcp>
> listen 10514
> ruleset remote10514
> </input>
>
> this almost looks like XML (which is no surprise given the fact that
Apache's
> config also looks somewhat like XML and we talked about modifications that
> are a bit more in the spirit of XML). The step towards full XML is not a
big one
> (intentionally formated close to non-XML example):
>
> <input name=inp10515 type=imtcp>
> <params listen="10514"
> ruleset="remote10514"
> />
> </input>
>
> While I am not a big fan of XML config files, I have to admit that the
> difference between what we discussed, at least in a later stage, and XML is
> slim. Seeing this, I begin to think that using an XML-based config language
has
> a number of advantages. Probably the most important being that I do not
> need to write an maintain a dedicated parser but could use a XML-Parser
> instead. Plus a validating editor could probably be a good aid in writing
config
> files (assuming that I get the DTD right, something I have no experience in
;)).
>
> So I have converted my original proposal (NOT the last discussion state)
into
> XML format. Again, I think the XML version is quite readable. Please have a
> look
>
> Original: http://www.rsyslog.com/download/new_rsyslog.conf
> XML: http://www.rsyslog.com/download/xml_rsyslog.conf
>
> I wonder if there is any good argument AGAINST using XML as "described" in
> the sample. If nobody brings up a good argument, I'll very possibly will
try to
> take the XML road and begin to look what that takes in detail. Of course,
it
> would be helpful as well if you could make yourself heard if you like XML
> format ;).
>
> I am looking forward to your feedback!
>
> Thanks again,
> Rainer
> _______________________________________________
> rsyslog mailing list
> http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
> http://www.rsyslog.com
_______________________________________________
rsyslog mailing list
http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
http://www.rsyslog.com
