Sent from phone, thus brief. Am 15.12.2013 20:54 schrieb "Pavel Levshin" <[email protected]>: > > > 15.12.2013 23:44, David Lang: > >> On Sun, 15 Dec 2013, Pavel Levshin wrote: >> >>> 15.12.2013 23:25, David Lang: >>>> >>>> On Sun, 15 Dec 2013, Pavel Levshin wrote: >>>> >>>>> 15.12.2013 23:09, David Lang: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> ii) *don't even bother with the old-style config*. Double the effort, >>>>>>> triple the confusion. Even right now, everything supported (7.x and later) >>>>>>> works with new-style config. We tell everyone to upgrade, so it makes sense >>>>>>> to concentrate on the new stuff that we consider better. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> sometimes it's much easier to do the old-style config, and there are a lot of docs out there with the old style (not to mention configs), we need people to be able to understand what these existing docs and configs are talking about. As well as how to convert from one style to the other. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Old-style config should be obsolete, and it's a pity if they are so much easier, that it justifies mixing them with new-style. This is not to say that old-style should not be documented. Obviously, if they are supported, they need to be documented. But users should feel encouraged to use just one, hopefully newer, dialect. This can be reached by following some rules in docs. Something like this: >>>>> >>>>> - When describing a feature, use only newer syntax; >>>>> - Then list all mappings from older to newer syntax separately, with examples, to make migration simpler. >>>> >>>> >>>> old style configs are going to continue to be supported. >>> >>> >>> As backward compatibility measure, but their usage is not recommended, right? So, how do we separate current syntax from legacy one? >> >> >> no, old style and new style are considered equally supported, use whatever makes the most sense for your config >> >> *.* /var/log/messages >> >> is FAR clearer than >> >> action(type='omfile' file='/var/log/messages') >> > > OK, for me, this just is not old-syntax example. By old-style, I mean this and alike: > > http://www.rsyslog.com/doc/rsyslog_conf_global.html > > Do you think that *$MainMsgQueueWorkerThreadMinumumMessages* is good for something new? Why not use new syntax? For now, the reason is very sad: it is very hard to find how to write it in new syntax.
That's my essence as well. What was in sysklogd is still fine in any new version of rsyslog. It's simple to use and clear. Complex constructs, however, should be done in new style. Rainer > > > -- > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
