On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
Well, I agree with you, hauk. We should not work around our own
infrastructure in monit. We could provide the patch as a contrib patch
and use the implementation as an inspiration for our own code.
As far as we got now with the event engine, we should think about
organizing it as we did it for the protocols. Thus, we make it easy to
seamlessly integrate custom event code.
=> -1 for including the patch as it is right now
=> put the patch in contrib
Just my 2 cent,
Christian
Thanks, for the patch[1] I think we can and will use code from this,
but not accept the patch as is[2]. The code looks good but IHMO the
main problem with the patch is that it is designed as an add-on and
does not integrate well with either logging and the event handling
mechanism already in monit. Instead it implements it's own module
where logging and "events" are tightly coupled into one separate unit.
In fact the code is so standalone that you could probably take it and
add it to any program without to much trouble :) This is of course not
necessarily a bad thing by all means. However, I feel that if we
should incorporate the patch directly we will bind us up into a design
that is not as flexible as we would want to have.
What we need is a clean separation between the event handling
mechanism and logging. The way I see it, event handling should be
clearly decoupled from any output channel, such as logging. That way,
it is much easier to provide an "event manager" that can delegate (see
the delegation design-pattern) output to different output handlers.
Such as sending an email, send a snmp trap, or log a message in a log
file.
As I said, your code is fine and if you allow us to use parts of the
code especially for the log format it would be appreciated. I would
also certainly like to thank you for providing this patch and for
using time and energy on the work. If the patch works for you and your
company it's great, that's what open source is. You take the code and
tweak it to solve a particular problem and if others can use it is a
nice side-effect.
[1] It's not a patch but a copy of the CVS, the best thing is to
provide changes as a real patch. For instance by using, [cvs diff -u]
[2] I speak for myself and other commiters in the project may very
well have a different opinion. In that case we will vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
monit-dev mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monit-dev