[Lognorm] Patches for 'recursive' field type

[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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.adiscon.net/pipermail/lognorm/attachments/20150119/4256911f/attachment.html>