Re: XML config style

2012-09-26 Thread Ralph Goers
On Sep 26, 2012, at 8:32 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Ralph Goers > wrote: > Have you guys read > http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/configuration.html#ConfigurationSyntax? > In particular the "strict" and "schema" attributes. > > IMO, using a schema fo

Re: XML config style

2012-09-26 Thread Gary Gregory
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > Have you guys read > http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/configuration.html#ConfigurationSyntax? > In > particular the "strict" and "schema" attributes. > > IMO, using a schema for the concise format would be very impractical. > Perso

Re: XML config style

2012-09-26 Thread Ralph Goers
That is true. But it also means you aren't validating much. Ralph On Sep 26, 2012, at 8:25 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: > IIRC, XSD has an type that allows you to accept any element. This > allows a flexible schema. > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Ralph Goers > wrote: > Have you guys re

Re: XML config style

2012-09-26 Thread Paul Benedict
IIRC, XSD has an type that allows you to accept any element. This allows a flexible schema. On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > Have you guys read > http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/configuration.html#ConfigurationSyntax? > In > particular the "strict" and "schema"

Re: XML config style

2012-09-26 Thread Ralph Goers
Have you guys read http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/configuration.html#ConfigurationSyntax? In particular the "strict" and "schema" attributes. IMO, using a schema for the concise format would be very impractical. Personally, I'm not sure it makes sense even for the strict format as

Re: XML config style

2012-09-26 Thread Paul Benedict
It's true that validation can add a bit of grogginess to the system. However, that can simply be controlled by a Java system property if necessary. I don't think we need the validation at runtime, however, having an XSD at design time is a definite. I need all the help I can get inside Eclipse :-)

Re: XML config style

2012-09-26 Thread Ivan Habunek
On 26 September 2012 13:39, Gary Gregory wrote: > Incorrect! I stand corrected. Still, it's probably not wise to have automatic XSD validation before configuration because of performance issues. But it would be nice to have a method which users can call and validate their XML configuration files

Re: XML config style

2012-09-26 Thread Gary Gregory
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Ivan Habunek wrote: > On 26 September 2012 08:12, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Furthermore, if we do XML, we should deliver an XML Schema. > > Having a schema is always good. But if you're tempted to do automatic > validation of config files using the schema, I suggest

Re: XML config style

2012-09-25 Thread Ivan Habunek
On 26 September 2012 08:12, Gary Gregory wrote: > Furthermore, if we do XML, we should deliver an XML Schema. Having a schema is always good. But if you're tempted to do automatic validation of config files using the schema, I suggest you don't. I implemented automatic XSD validation in log4php

Re: XML config style

2012-09-25 Thread Gary Gregory
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Noel Grandin wrote: > > On 2012-09-26 04:01, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> Almost everything is case insensitive. You can spell it appenders, >> Appenders, APPENDERS or aPpEnDeRs. >> >> >> That's probably not a good idea long term. > XML is case-sensitive by default,

Re: XML config style

2012-09-25 Thread Noel Grandin
On 2012-09-26 04:01, Ralph Goers wrote: Almost everything is case insensitive. You can spell it appenders, Appenders, APPENDERS or aPpEnDeRs. That's probably not a good idea long term. XML is case-sensitive by default, thus most of the XML tools are also case sensitive. If someone decide