On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:33 PM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 fear that when we put up the old version docs as well, this "google
problem" will likely happen even more often - and I would even bet that
from then on google will tend to serve the old style (as of Murphy's law
;)).
>
> 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
>
well... TBH I think we can't keep everyone happy here. We had to settle for
some format, and after years of discussion, now it is there. I also think
that part of the problem is in the formatting. I'd write it that way
if ... then {
action()
stop
}
so that from the nesting the block is clearly visible. Besides, there is no
problem in using & ~ if it is just a simple filter.
>
> and when doing simple files and forwarding, the old style is MUCH easier
> to read than the new style.
yup - that's why I constantly say it will stay AND be a preferred method of
doing simple things.
> 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)
>
.. but that's a different case, and many folks have shoot themself into the
foot by using this, especially when includes were also used. Probably a
module default parameter would help, here. But again, we needed to find a
solution when folks complained about the complexity of the legacy format
and now it is very obvious what belongs to what, ... which comes at a
price, of course.
>
> 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 strongly oppose that, as avoiding such a thing was one of the prime
motivations for the new format. We would go in circles.
>
> 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.
>
I still think that's primarily a formatting question.
>
>
> 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
>
It's quite a bit of work, as (contrary to the optimizer) all modules would
need to be updated (action & input parameters are only visible by the
module in question).
Rainer
>
> 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<http://kb.monitorware.com/post23785.html>
>>
>> Your feedback is appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rainer
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> rsyslog mailing list
>> http://lists.adiscon.net/**mailman/listinfo/rsyslog<http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog>
>> http://www.rsyslog.com/**professional-services/<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://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog>
> http://www.rsyslog.com/**professional-services/<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.
