In some mail from Marcus J. Ranum, sie said: > > Balazs Scheidler wrote: > >What do others think about whether typing of tags should be done or not? > > I don't think we need to type tags. The whole idea of tagging > the data is to allow it to be implicity typed. I think you're answering a different question than he asked or he's asking two questions there, perhaps unbekownst to himself. In my mind, tag, its value and the value's type are all separate, only to the API. If the output is going to be in strings, so be it, but why constrain the API that way ? It's times like this when I think of C as being too primitive for this and if I could express it all in Java, it'd be better. When you serialise an object in java you esentially turn it into an XML text string with no type informatin. The Java object knows what type it is and how to convert itself to/from whatever it serialises out to. What I'm trying to say is I want the API to do the string conversion based on input I give it rather than me doing it myself, assuming that it wants to output string data. I don't want that output to be contain anything describing the type, only the tag & value. I'm trying to convince others this is the way to go but I'm not having much luck! > IN FACT, "type inference from tag name" is what XML does, right? I don't know about that. Looking at the examples in the book I have, all of the values are just strings and the only special type is "#PCDATA". Then again, this book is a couple of years old now... The DTD is about the structure of the document (nesting), not so much the format of the data itself. > This stuff is so > damn obvious it's not even funny. It's just logging, it's not > brain surgery. But the problem isn't "just logging". It's what sort of data do we want, how do we want it, etc. At least in brain surgery they know what they need to do (or I hope they do) to make it better for one person. Trying to sit around and come up with something that's better for lots of people is going to be understandably more tedious. There seem to be a few people here that consider themselves "stakeholders" and its important for people to understand what others think. This takes time, even over beer. We may have discovered a few things twice, but that's all part of the discussion about the pros and cons of doing anything in a particular way. I at least think it is important to understand these things so it shouldn't be thought of as time wasted - so long as everyone keeps an open mind. People joke about how bad syslog is. I'm sure something just as bad could be easily churned out from this group as something new and wonderful but I don't think anyone is keen to have that happen. Don't be so impatient Marcus, think about how long IPv6 took to reach us(!) or IPsec...please, be mindful of the "..." :-) Just relax, have a few more beers and sit back waiting for some more ducks to fly by to pop off ;) Darren _______________________________________________ LogAnalysis mailing list LogAnalysisat_private http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 02 2003 - 18:51:33 PST