On Wed, 23 Mar 2016, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
Anyhow, maybe we need to go towards full-blown scripting capabilities.
Not sure the engine is really up to that, but... Given the fact that I
didn't strongly oppose the current loops system, I think you have a
good point if the extension can easily be done without adding extra
complexity. Still I am a bit nervous about the long-term implications,
but let's see how things evolve.
I think we are headed towards capabilities resembling scripting, but for
performance reasons I think we are going to want to have everything 'compiled'
at startup time.
I see a few reasons for wanting to avoid having a full language implementation
1. performance (including maintianing multi-threaded capabilities)
2. maintinance complexity (including implementation effort)
3. backwards compatibility
4. startup learning curve (keep the simple things simple)
5. avoiding users becoming too dependednt on implementation details (we're
already there to some extend by having oru variables based on json)
There are probably others. You are right to be concerned about such things, but
I think we are going to keep drifting in that direction, and especially as we
are thinking of making a major change to the variable handling, it's probably
appropriate to think about how things can/should work in the long run.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
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.
