05.11.2013 13:23, David Lang:
To summarize: current call behaviour makes perfect sense (because call
implies return), but, to be consistent, ruleset objects should not
contain
queue as a property. Or, at least, there should be warning when the
queue
is not of "direct" type.
And then, possibility to resubmit a message into another queue is also
helpful. It can be done externally (via omfwd/imudp, for example),
but, for
performance reasons, it is certainly better to do this internally.
Maybe,
omruleset is the right way to go, it only lacks possibility to pass the
message by reference for better performance.
I disagree, I think both types make perfect sense, but for different
situations.
Where is this disagreement? :) Did I say something differently?
call/return (i.e. direct queue) makes sense when you are using the
ruleset to simplify your config by taking some thing that you may have
to do many places in the rules and only enter them once (or where you
want to output to one file from many places in the rules, after
different manipulation has been done to the message)
async call (i.e. non-direct queue) can be used in many of the same
places that call/return can be used, but it can also be used for many
cases there it won't work (say you are sending to remote machines and
you want to limit the total disk space used by your queues, you are
stuck either using a single queue, or doing a queue per destination
where you may have messages duplicated in the different queues)
In fact, I think the cases where call/return matters (i.e. something
in the ruleset modifies the message and then things outside the
ruleset depend on the change) are probably the rarer need
It's all correct. What I've said is that "async call" could be named
differently. "Spawn", for example. Because in most programming languages
"call" implies return, and in Rainerscript it was so... till this day.
The problem is, you cannot reliably tell what a "call" does, can it
change the message and return, can it delay processing (due to some
action in remote ruleset) or not, if it is just "call" for every case.
But now - we already have async "call", just like docs said before. Btw,
it copies the message, just like omruleset.
--
Pavel Levshin
_______________________________________________
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.
