On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Rainer Gerhards <[email protected]> wrote: > David, all > > I suggest you have a look at some good comment I received on comp.text.xml: > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.text.xml/browse_thread/thread/f1b96d132e3 > fdd8e# > > It is post #8 by Peter Flynn. > > Also, I replied there with some extra information (should be post #10, but > does not yet show up on Google Groups).
After reading this thread, I'm starting to think that XML may not be the way. It seems like to get a format that is module-friendly, and (to a lesser degree) human readable, we would be stretching the XML specs and intended use of XML. Specifically, the bit on building/rebuilding a dtd based on what modules are loaded becomes extremely complex. I'm starting to realize why java frameworks are such a pain to configure: each modular piece has its own configuration file -- and this is a correct application of XML and DTD separations. While continuing down the XML route doesn't really bother me, I'm beginning to wonder if its a good idea. -Aaron _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com
