On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 10:54 +0200, Jesper Dahl Nyerup wrote: > On Jun 22 12:23, 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? > > > > Please let me know your feedback, > > First of all, I think this discussion in itself is very interesting, and > I completely understand and applaude the ambition of reforming the > config file format to increase its flexibility, to have a formalised way > of representing a hierachial data structure, and to ease the parsing and > validation of its contents. > > But. > > I just opened the XML example above in my 80x24 terminal, with vim > without syntax highlighting - contrary to popular belief, XML is NOT > human readable. I fear, that XML based config files will be a hassle to > write, a headache to read, and a source of errors when they need to be > altered quickly.
You mention many of the same concerns I have, or had. Did you also have a look at David's proposal? I guess it got lost in the vast amount of mail. I have uploaded it to http://www.rsyslog.com/download/david_rsyslog.conf I think this problem is actually human readable and writable. What do you think? Rainer > > As an equally parsable and standardised alternative, I would suggest to > take a look at YAML. I think it's far easier to read, just as easy - and > perhaps a bit quicker - to write, and most of all, I think it's simpler > to handle on simple-UI systems. And most of the systems where I maintain > rsyslog, are just that. > > I know I'm a bit late to chip in on this, and that a lot of impressive > work has been done already, but I felt that this should be said anyway. > Either way, I'm happy about the ambition to continue to support the > current config format. > > Jesper Nyerup. > > > > > 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
