|
From: | Martin Pala |
Subject: | Re: environment variables |
Date: | Sun, 29 Jun 2003 23:10:55 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030618 Debian/1.3.1-3 |
Christian Hopp wrote:
We discussed the general event driven model, where all events were mapped by default to method names, but later we "slowed down". Present event is subset of proposed model and it is choice of (alert.c):On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Martin Pala wrote:I think it will be usefull to extend execution environment list (in spawn.c) by: MONIT_EVENT MONIT_SERVICE and MONIT_ACTION (will be described in the proposal) What do you think?* Event? It is the "method" like "start", "stop"...?
#define DO_TIMEOUT 0 #define DO_RESTART 1 #define DO_CHECKSUM 2 #define DO_RESOURCE 3 #define DO_STOP 4 #define DO_FAILED 5 #define DO_TIMESTAMP 6It could be, that the implementation will be close to the original proposal (which wasn't very realistic because of development resources) and events will comprise all "events" (like 'start', etc.) - we will see :)
I'm more inclined to give the application in environment only informations which will be needed. Application then could create the same message itself (monit's report contains just compilation of the same information with lot of 'user-friendly' words - i think it is not needed to give complete form of the message to method).* What about MONIT_REPORT... the message generated for the mail?
In case service is a device or filesystem, we need MONIT_FS_FREE, MONIT_INODE_FREE,...
Agree
Generally: +1 CHopp
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |