[Lognorm] Patches for 'recursive' field type

[singh.janmejay]

Sure. I thought the patchset fell from the radar, hence the bump.

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Rainer Gerhards <rgerhards at hq.adiscon.com>
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 <singh.janmejay at gmail.com>:
>
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.adiscon.net/pipermail/lognorm/attachments/20150119/325dea25/attachment-0001.html>