> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:rsyslog- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards > Sent: Dienstag, 22. Juni 2010 17:42 > To: rsyslog-users > Subject: Re: [rsyslog] feedback requested: NEW rsyslog.conf format -- XML? > > > > > 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?
Maybe it is because I am already seeing the additional code which needs to be written when using dedicated xml-nodes for each input type instead of having one input XML-tag with a type parameter, which does not necessarily needs to be called "type". I have read the comments about using a XML DTD, but if we are going to use the format for multiple applications, it could become difficult to maintain a common version of the XML DTD. So the question is, is it that much more human read-/use- able to use "<imtcp..." instead of "<im type=tcp..." or "<im id=tcp..."? Best regards, Andre Lorbach _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com
