> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:rsyslog- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Andre Lorbach > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 4:46 PM > To: rsyslog-users > Subject: Re: [rsyslog] feedback requested: NEW rsyslog.conf format -- > XML? > > I meant this: > > <input name=inp10515 type=imtcp> > <param id="listen">10514</param> > <param id="ruleset">remote10514</param> > </input> > > Looks more readable to me as > <params > listen="10514" > ruleset="remote10514" > />
really? Good to hear this, my personal perception is just the opposite. Of course, that doesn't imply anything about what is best... Just let me elaborate that *I* find the first sample less readable because there is so much "clutter" around the actually important text. > Also another advantage is if you have parameters that contain linefeeds > like > message templates: > > <input name=inp10515 type=imtcp> > <param id="listen">10514</param> > <param id="template">$foo > > $bar</param> > </input> That's a very good argument! Rainer > > Regards, > Andre Lorbach > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:rsyslog- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards > > Sent: Montag, 21. Juni 2010 15:10 > > To: rsyslog-users > > Subject: Re: [rsyslog] feedback requested: NEW rsyslog.conf format -- > XML? > > > > > -----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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
