MonitorWare Knowledge Base

This thread may host all comments and discussions about the new config file format. A good starting point for readers is my blog post at

http://rgerhards.blogspot.com/2007/09/r ... again.html

Please post your opinion or let me know it via some other way. Everyone's opinion is vitally important to steer the rsyslog project into the right direction!

Thanks,
Rainer

• Custom written rsyslog.conf?
• Maintenance Contract?
• Installation support?

Hi,

I'm not (yet) really a user of rsyslogd - right now, I'm using syslog-ng - but I consider
switching to rsyslogd because I like sticking to RFCs and I hope very much that
built-in encryption will some day be realized (yes, I know about ssh tunneling, and
I'm using it, but sometimes the tunnels die and messages get lost).

To the point.

I whole-heartedly agree with your preference of a programming-language-like
approach. XML is a real pain to use in configuration files IMHO. The first sample
looks very good to me.

The BASIC-like approach, well, I'm not exactly a BASIC fan.

The C-like approach is ok, too, but you have to do a lot of cross-reading. I could
also imagine config files getting cluttered after a few changes.

So, my vote would be for the first sample of the programming-language-like approach.

Regards,
Torsten

I'd like to vote in favor of the programming-language-like format.

XML is too bloated to be written by humans IMHO.

Apart from that: There should be some compatibility-layer for reading standard syslog.conf files so that it is still possible to use rsyslog as a drop-in replacement for stock syslogd.

Regards,
sur5r

sur5r wrote:Apart from that: There should be some compatibility-layer for reading standard syslog.conf files so that it is still possible to use rsyslog as a drop-in replacement for stock syslogd.

That's definitely true. Whatever the new format will be, rsyslog will *also* be able (by default) to read old-style config files. This is also useful for simple setups (which are the most common ones), where the old-style config file is a very easy, well known and efficient way to do things...

Thanks for pointing this out.

Rainer

I'd vote for metalog format but the first sample for the programing one is good as well. Maybe look into a sieve-like format as well?

Another vote for the first programming-language sample.

XML works well for a lot of things, but it's a pain in the ass for configuration files. This sample is clear and easy to read for a non-programmer like myself. The BASIC- and C-style samples are too cryptic and use too many extraneous characters.

-HKS