> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:rsyslog-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Andre Lorbach
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 2:57 PM
> To: rsyslog-users
> Subject: Re: [rsyslog] feedback requested: NEW rsyslog.conf format --
> XML?
>
> 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.
I think you mean this:
<input name=inp10515 type=imtcp>
<params>
<param id="listen">10514</param>
<param id="ruleset">remote10514</param>
</params>
</input>
But what's the advantage of this over
<input name=inp10515 type=imtcp>
<params
listen="10514"
ruleset="remote10514"
/>
</input>
I have to admit that I do not see an advantage, just more text to be written
(and IMHO harder to read due to more noise). So I personally prefer the
paramter approach. Also I don't see why it should become less readable if
there are many parameters. Isn't that just a matter of how you format the
source text?
Maybe I am overlooking something obvious. I don't have much experience with
XML...
Rainer
_______________________________________________
rsyslog mailing list
http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
http://www.rsyslog.com
