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
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
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
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"
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
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 :-)
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
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
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
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,
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
11 matches
Mail list logo