On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > Hi all, > > I have now condensed all points brought up and crafted a sample with > > a) unified parameter names (accepting namespace pollution as a minor problem) > b) almost everything expressed by its own param elements > > The sample is available at > > http://www.rsyslog.com/download/xml_params_rsyslog.conf > > I have to admit that it doesn't look as bad as I feared (at least when > looking at it with at least simple syntax highlighting). > > All in all, I think this format could work well enough. I myself do not have > any objections any longer against it. Does somebody else have concerns?
heh, as i see it this embodies the worst practicies of XML config files it uses a very small number of tags that you can't understand without looking at the type parameter for each tag. the tag names become almost meaningless noise. you have no way of knowing what can be specified more than once it's extremely verbose by making your parameters be the text between tags it forces any comments into the horrible <-- --> approach. David Lang > Please let me know your feedback, > Rainer > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:rsyslog- >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards >> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:01 AM >> 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 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
