From singh.janmejay at gmail.com Mon Jan 19 15:43:30 2015 From: singh.janmejay at gmail.com (singh.janmejay) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:13:30 +0530 Subject: [Lognorm] Patches for 'recursive' field type In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does this look alright? On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:26 PM, singh.janmejay wrote: > Created the PR: https://github.com/rsyslog/liblognorm/pull/11 > > It also adds a descent field, which like recursive parses parts using top > level parse-tree, but unlike recursive, it uses a different rulebase. > > Added type-interpretation too, which comes handy when objects in tokenized > or recursively parsed objects need to be specified (it identifies int, > base16-int, double and boolean as of now). > Calling it interpret and not type-interpret because it can later be used > for other things(non type things) too. > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:58 PM, singh.janmejay > wrote: >> >> We also have a json-comparer as a part of this patch-set. This allows >> lognorm tests to use equality tests of json-objects rather than having to >> work with fragments of json in order to avoid key ordering problem. >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:56 PM, singh.janmejay >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Here are code-changes for 'recursive' field-type: >>> https://github.com/janmejay/liblognorm/compare/janmejay:master...recursive?expand=1 >>> >>> I wanted to put it out for review and discussion, hence this link. >>> >>> I'll create a pull request once already open pull request(for regex >>> support) is wrapped up. Github tries to club old and new changes into one >>> pull-request which mixes up multiple changes, so im trying to avoid that. >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Janmejay >>> http://codehunk.wordpress.com >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Janmejay >> http://codehunk.wordpress.com >> > > > -- > Regards, > Janmejay > http://codehunk.wordpress.com > -- Regards, Janmejay http://codehunk.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rgerhards at hq.adiscon.com Mon Jan 19 16:32:48 2015 From: rgerhards at hq.adiscon.com (Rainer Gerhards) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:32:48 +0100 Subject: [Lognorm] Patches for 'recursive' field type In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: give me a little more time... I am right now working on the CI environment, after Thomas sent in patches this morning. Then auto-package generation and then let's see ;) Just busy as usual... Rainer 2015-01-19 15:43 GMT+01:00 singh.janmejay : > Does this look alright? > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:26 PM, singh.janmejay > wrote: > >> Created the PR: https://github.com/rsyslog/liblognorm/pull/11 >> >> It also adds a descent field, which like recursive parses parts using top >> level parse-tree, but unlike recursive, it uses a different rulebase. >> >> Added type-interpretation too, which comes handy when objects in >> tokenized or recursively parsed objects need to be specified (it identifies >> int, base16-int, double and boolean as of now). >> Calling it interpret and not type-interpret because it can later be used >> for other things(non type things) too. >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:58 PM, singh.janmejay >> wrote: >>> >>> We also have a json-comparer as a part of this patch-set. This allows >>> lognorm tests to use equality tests of json-objects rather than having to >>> work with fragments of json in order to avoid key ordering problem. >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:56 PM, singh.janmejay >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Here are code-changes for 'recursive' field-type: >>>> https://github.com/janmejay/liblognorm/compare/janmejay:master...recursive?expand=1 >>>> >>>> I wanted to put it out for review and discussion, hence this link. >>>> >>>> I'll create a pull request once already open pull request(for regex >>>> support) is wrapped up. Github tries to club old and new changes into one >>>> pull-request which mixes up multiple changes, so im trying to avoid that. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Janmejay >>>> http://codehunk.wordpress.com >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Janmejay >>> http://codehunk.wordpress.com >>> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Janmejay >> http://codehunk.wordpress.com >> > > > > -- > Regards, > Janmejay > http://codehunk.wordpress.com > > _______________________________________________ > Lognorm mailing list > Lognorm at lists.adiscon.com > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/lognorm > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From singh.janmejay at gmail.com Mon Jan 19 16:45:57 2015 From: singh.janmejay at gmail.com (singh.janmejay) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:15:57 +0530 Subject: [Lognorm] Patches for 'recursive' field type In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sure. I thought the patchset fell from the radar, hence the bump. On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > give me a little more time... I am right now working on the CI > environment, after Thomas sent in patches this morning. Then auto-package > generation and then let's see ;) Just busy as usual... > > Rainer > > 2015-01-19 15:43 GMT+01:00 singh.janmejay : > >> Does this look alright? >> >> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:26 PM, singh.janmejay > > wrote: >> >>> Created the PR: https://github.com/rsyslog/liblognorm/pull/11 >>> >>> It also adds a descent field, which like recursive parses parts using >>> top level parse-tree, but unlike recursive, it uses a different rulebase. >>> >>> Added type-interpretation too, which comes handy when objects in >>> tokenized or recursively parsed objects need to be specified (it identifies >>> int, base16-int, double and boolean as of now). >>> Calling it interpret and not type-interpret because it can later be used >>> for other things(non type things) too. >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:58 PM, singh.janmejay >> > wrote: >>>> >>>> We also have a json-comparer as a part of this patch-set. This allows >>>> lognorm tests to use equality tests of json-objects rather than having to >>>> work with fragments of json in order to avoid key ordering problem. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:56 PM, singh.janmejay < >>>> singh.janmejay at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Here are code-changes for 'recursive' field-type: >>>>> https://github.com/janmejay/liblognorm/compare/janmejay:master...recursive?expand=1 >>>>> >>>>> I wanted to put it out for review and discussion, hence this link. >>>>> >>>>> I'll create a pull request once already open pull request(for regex >>>>> support) is wrapped up. Github tries to club old and new changes into one >>>>> pull-request which mixes up multiple changes, so im trying to avoid that. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Janmejay >>>>> http://codehunk.wordpress.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Janmejay >>>> http://codehunk.wordpress.com >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Janmejay >>> http://codehunk.wordpress.com >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Janmejay >> http://codehunk.wordpress.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lognorm mailing list >> Lognorm at lists.adiscon.com >> http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/lognorm >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Lognorm mailing list > Lognorm at lists.adiscon.com > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/lognorm > > -- Regards, Janmejay http://codehunk.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rgerhards at hq.adiscon.com Mon Jan 19 16:48:50 2015 From: rgerhards at hq.adiscon.com (Rainer Gerhards) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:48:50 +0100 Subject: [Lognorm] Patches for 'recursive' field type In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2015-01-19 16:45 GMT+01:00 singh.janmejay : > Sure. I thought the patchset fell from the radar, hence the bump. > > I should have communicated that, my fault. I didn't want to have it in the last release, as there was little time to look in depth. and then a couple of things happened in parallel ;) I hope to have much more time to look at liblognorm in the coming months, but this is right now brewing as well... Rainer On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Rainer Gerhards > wrote: > >> give me a little more time... I am right now working on the CI >> environment, after Thomas sent in patches this morning. Then auto-package >> generation and then let's see ;) Just busy as usual... >> >> Rainer >> >> 2015-01-19 15:43 GMT+01:00 singh.janmejay : >> >>> Does this look alright? >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:26 PM, singh.janmejay < >>> singh.janmejay at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Created the PR: https://github.com/rsyslog/liblognorm/pull/11 >>>> >>>> It also adds a descent field, which like recursive parses parts using >>>> top level parse-tree, but unlike recursive, it uses a different rulebase. >>>> >>>> Added type-interpretation too, which comes handy when objects in >>>> tokenized or recursively parsed objects need to be specified (it identifies >>>> int, base16-int, double and boolean as of now). >>>> Calling it interpret and not type-interpret because it can later be >>>> used for other things(non type things) too. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:58 PM, singh.janmejay < >>>> singh.janmejay at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We also have a json-comparer as a part of this patch-set. This allows >>>>> lognorm tests to use equality tests of json-objects rather than having to >>>>> work with fragments of json in order to avoid key ordering problem. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:56 PM, singh.janmejay < >>>>> singh.janmejay at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Here are code-changes for 'recursive' field-type: >>>>>> https://github.com/janmejay/liblognorm/compare/janmejay:master...recursive?expand=1 >>>>>> >>>>>> I wanted to put it out for review and discussion, hence this link. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll create a pull request once already open pull request(for regex >>>>>> support) is wrapped up. Github tries to club old and new changes into one >>>>>> pull-request which mixes up multiple changes, so im trying to avoid that. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Janmejay >>>>>> http://codehunk.wordpress.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Janmejay >>>>> http://codehunk.wordpress.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Janmejay >>>> http://codehunk.wordpress.com >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Janmejay >>> http://codehunk.wordpress.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lognorm mailing list >>> Lognorm at lists.adiscon.com >>> http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/lognorm >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lognorm mailing list >> Lognorm at lists.adiscon.com >> http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/lognorm >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > Janmejay > http://codehunk.wordpress.com > > _______________________________________________ > Lognorm mailing list > Lognorm at lists.adiscon.com > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/lognorm > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: