Re: monit CHANGES.txt gc.c l.l monitor.h p.y util.c...

[Jan-Henrik Haukeland]

On Dec 20, 2004, at 8:57 AM, Martin Pala wrote:

> oops - on the second sigth it may not be practical to replace the port 
> syntax at all - for example the simpliest form:
>
>   if failed port 80 then ...
>
> and url based alternative:
>
>   if failed generic://127.0.0.1:80 then ...

The idea of using urls in connection test and even for file check can 
be good. As you say, the URL syntax is known and has a nice compact 
format. I'm not going to do any changes now, but lets put it at the 
back of our heads.

> But maybe it could be possible to consolidate it internally, i.e. both 
> syntaxes may use common structure for protocol, host, port, request, 
> user, etc.

Maybe, the port object has so much in it now. I guess I can take 
hostname, port, request* (definitely) and put them in the Request.URL 
object embedded in the Port_T object. However hostname and port do 
belong conceptually with Port_T. I'll see if I cannot do some 
consolidations. At least  the request stuff can be moved into the new 
Request_T in Port_T.

--
Jan-Henrik Haukeland
mobile +47 97141255