> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra escribi=C3=B3:
> > I fully agree with you, but could you please call it a name that
> > wouldn't cause confusion?
>=20
> Any proposals?
Anything which doesn't cause confusion to anyone by thinking they're
related.
> > If you insist on using NSCA2, please implement a compatibility layer =
>=20
> What type of compatibility would people want?
>=20
> Protocol compatibility? (that is that you can mix nsca2 and nsca client=
s=20
> and servers)
> - this one I'm not aiming for.
Some servers are not easy to change, sometimes due to specific rules,
sometimes due to ITIL, etc...
You need to have protocol compatibility in order to make a change only
at the monitorization server, no new firewall rules, no server access,
etc...
If you're not aiming for that, you should use another name, another
port, etc...
Rui
This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]