Re: [Nagios-devel] [Nagios-users] RFC/RFP: Service parents
Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 10:58 am
On 05/17/2011 11:53 AM, Max Schubert wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>> On 05/17/2011 11:34 AM, Max Schubert wrote:
>>> Andreas,
>>>
>>> How does this differ functionality from the current ability to
>>> describe dependencies with servicedependency? Is it just easier to
>>> define (I agree that would be a win)
>>>
>>
>> It's just easier to describe, and it ties in nicely with different
>> additions to the configuration syntax being planned. It does have
>> some limitations, but in 99.5% of all dependencies I've seen, it
>> matches the usecase people put dependencies to so it should be quite
>> a nice win anyway.
>
> I agree - the current syntax is very flexible but understanding how to
> implement it properly for some users results in a very painful
> learning curve.
>
Yes, that's more or less the only reason to implement service parents.
> Any plans to detatch notification attributes from service / host
> definitions in 4.x and make them their own top-level configuration
> class like escalations to make it easier to scale notification
> definitions for large projects?
>
Not really. What would such an object look like? How would it add
additional benefit compared to using templates for hosts and services?
I think if I could just see some sort of example definition of it I'd
get an inkling of why some seem to think it's such a great idea. Right
now, I see no additional benefit to it.
--
Andreas Ericsson [email protected]
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and
terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war
on peace.
This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>> On 05/17/2011 11:34 AM, Max Schubert wrote:
>>> Andreas,
>>>
>>> How does this differ functionality from the current ability to
>>> describe dependencies with servicedependency? Is it just easier to
>>> define (I agree that would be a win)
>>>
>>
>> It's just easier to describe, and it ties in nicely with different
>> additions to the configuration syntax being planned. It does have
>> some limitations, but in 99.5% of all dependencies I've seen, it
>> matches the usecase people put dependencies to so it should be quite
>> a nice win anyway.
>
> I agree - the current syntax is very flexible but understanding how to
> implement it properly for some users results in a very painful
> learning curve.
>
Yes, that's more or less the only reason to implement service parents.
> Any plans to detatch notification attributes from service / host
> definitions in 4.x and make them their own top-level configuration
> class like escalations to make it easier to scale notification
> definitions for large projects?
>
Not really. What would such an object look like? How would it add
additional benefit compared to using templates for hosts and services?
I think if I could just see some sort of example definition of it I'd
get an inkling of why some seem to think it's such a great idea. Right
now, I see no additional benefit to it.
--
Andreas Ericsson [email protected]
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and
terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war
on peace.
This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]