[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Order of Execution
From: |
Brendan Strejcek |
Subject: |
Re: Order of Execution |
Date: |
Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:27:02 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040818i |
Ed Brown wrote:
> Brendan's use of unqualified actions in the top-level actionsequnce
> (cfagent.conf) and qualified actions in included actionsequences could
> be useful in certain situations
Right. I don't actually use unqualified actions in a top-level
actionsequence; I only included that to illustrate my understanding
of how the final actionsequence is constructed. I either only have
actionsequence defined in imported fragments and qualify every action
(the way I used to do it), or I have a master actionsequence in my first
include (the way I currently do it). The second way sacrifices some
flexibility in return for simplicity. I have yet do decide which is
superior.
- Order of Execution, Brian E. Seppanen, 2005/01/05
- Re: Order of Execution, Pau Capdevila/Upcnet, 2005/01/05
- Re: Order of Execution, Brendan Strejcek, 2005/01/05
- Re: Order of Execution, Christian Pearce, 2005/01/05
- Actionsequence as a top level section, Chip Seraphine, 2005/01/05
- actionsequence suggestion, Ed Brown, 2005/01/06
- Re: actionsequence suggestion, Mark . Burgess, 2005/01/06
- Re: actionsequence suggestion, Tim Nelson, 2005/01/10
- Re: actionsequence suggestion, Brendan Strejcek, 2005/01/10
- Re: actionsequence suggestion, Ed Brown, 2005/01/10