> Proberly a bad term from me, "completely" is better. > If you use &#A, the XML Parser will automatically convert it into a > linefeed. > But if you use \n, we need an additional step to convert the > replacement > character into a linefeed.
I think Andre has a valid point here. If we use XML, why define our own mappings inside it? I don't see a big difference between \n and &#A (is it really '#'?), nor for the other mappings. And using XML escapes definitely has the advantage that we do not need to parse the parsed data once again. > > >>> I think from an internal configuration tree point of view, it is > > >>> much easier to read and parse <generic type=specific> approach > than > > >>> having multiple <genspecific>. > > >> > > >> much easier to parse, but more complex to check if you have the > > >> appropriate parameters (as well as being far more verbose) > > > > > > I agree that it is a little more difficult to read, but I don't > think > > > it becomes much more verbose. > > > > more difficult to read is a bad thing in and of itself. > > I agree, for readability your approach is more user friendly. But if I > also > think from the parsing point of view, a generic format is easier to > handle > internally. Andre, here I am not really in the same boat with you. I initially had similar concerns, but I don't see why this would complicate things (especially if you have a static set of entities). Am I overlooking something? Rainer _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com
