Re: Exec implemented!

[Christian Hopp]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:

Moin!

(...)

> 3) I have also added an extra feature to the parser. Now every program
>    mentioned in a start/stop/exec statement is checked in the parser
>    if they actually exist.

(...)

What if the program is deleted while monit runtime?  Should monit
test, just before running it.  If failed, send a message?

> 4) TODO:
>
>    a) I have not checked this with the various device statements but
>       it should work without changes.
>
>    b) I have not tested this extensively. Could others also please test.

I did some simple tests with it... it looks okay.

>    c) I have only added the exec statement to timestamp and resource
>       statements but it could be added to other statements as well,
>       for instance the checksum statement and port statement, maybe
>       also to the timeout statement? If you look in the parser you can
>       see that this is not hard to do.

For checksum and port it sounds reasonable.  But I don't really see
the reason for timeout.

>    d) Do we need to make it possible to use the various MONIT_XXX
>       variables as parameters to the exec program and then substitute
>       them with real values before they are executed? Like:
>           exec "$MONIT_PROGRAM $MONIT_DATE"
>       (where $MONIT_PROGRAM will be replaced with e.g.:
>       /usr/local/apache/bin/http). It would probably be usefull for
>       $MONIT_PROGRAM but for the other variables they will anyway be
>       available as environments variables.

If it is anyways just useful for one variable, it might be too much
unnecessary code for it.

(...)

>    f) If you are not on a vacation could you please check the code. As
>       I said, I'm not overly satisfied with the implementation and if
>       you can find a better way it would be very nice. It's not that
>       it is bad, but the association between an event, an action and
>       the program to execute upon a EXEC action is very weak and may
>       be error prone on usage.

I find it a bit confusing to have the alert event handler in alert.c
and not int event.c.  Better, have an interface handle_alert_event in
event.c and put any event specific code in it and call a maillist
worker in alert.c. Possible?

> Ps. I have been thinking and rethinking about the monit 4.0 release --
> I think that implementing Martin's language proposal could take some
> time and we have done lot's of changes and bugfixes to the current
> codebase. What do you think about freezing what we have now and do an
> intermediate 3.3 release in a short while and take the language
> changes in a 4.0 release later this year?

What feature would be still pending for 3.3?

+1

> I would feel a little more confident taking on the language changes
> if we could freeze and stabilize the current code base with a
> release and make sure that it works properly first. What do you
> think?

+1

CHopp

-- 
Christian Hopp                                email: address@hidden
Institut für Elektrische Informationstechnik             fon: +49-5323-72-2113
TU Clausthal, Leibnizstr. 28, 38678 Clausthal-Zellerf.   fax: +49-5323-72-3197
                             pgpkey: https://www.iei.tu-clausthal.de/pgp-keys/