hmm, I tried to login to respond, and after putting in the username/password in
the web form, I then got a browser popup asking for the site username/password,
so something seems odd there.
I think it's worth clearly splitting v5 and earlier from the latest. Many pages
are split this way (referring to the legacy format), but it's not always clear
that that is required for 5.x and optional for the current version. Occasionally
I run into a page (although this may be google finding the documentation
experiment) that gives the new format, but not the old.
I've been teaching people and setting up a new logging system at work the last
couple of weeks (before my last day there on monday) and I'm finding that there
are some times where people are getting confused with the new syntax. The boxes
we are dealing with are running the latest dev release (we installed 7.5.2 then
upgraded to 7.5.3)
some of it is in reading the documentation.
some of it is cases where the new syntax is confusing them. below is comments on
the confusion and wanders into possible ways to address this.
one case is implementing the fairly common
test action
& ~
when changing this to
if..then {action()
stop}
when the action() gets to be several lines long on the screen (either when
formatted, or in some cases because it's just that long with all the options
that need to be specified) they just loose the stop in all the text, so they
have decided not to use the blocks and stop and instead use the old & ~ on the
next line instead
and when doing simple files and forwarding, the old style is MUCH easier to read
than the new style. especially since some of the parameters can be set once and
never touched again (think fileownder and filegroup that were set once in the
old style and need to be set on every action for the new style)
it would possibly help this if it were possible to do something like
setactiondefault(type="modulename"....)
action()
action()
clearactiondefault()
so that each action could be a lot smaller.
I know this goes against some of what you are trying to do with the new format
(making it easy to see all the parameters that are used by an action), but there
is sometimes _so_ much boilerplate that it's actually harder to understand the
big-picture flow.
you have the config optimizer, I wonder how hard it would be to have a flag that
would tell rsyslogd to read the config, optimize it, then output what it sees as
the config (using all the new syntax)? this would flatten includes so that stuff
wouldn't be hidden by them, and make debugging easier as it would specify every
value for every option (including the ones that are defaults), no matter if they
are listed in the old style or new style format
David Lang
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
Hi folks,
there was an interesting question about putting multiple doc versions
online. If you are interested in that topic, please have a look at
http://kb.monitorware.com/post23785.html
Your feedback is appreciated.
Thanks,
Rainer
_______________________________________________
rsyslog mailing list
http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/
What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards
NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of
sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE
THAT.
_______________________________________________
rsyslog mailing list
http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/
What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards
NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of
sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE
THAT.
