Re: [Nagios-devel] Thoughts / request for feedback on extending
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:30 pm
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Hiren Patel wrote:
> I could see this being useful for us, we also use nagios internally
> extensively and a few teams share one distributed setup we have. we
> don't currently make extensive use of servicegroups, but I can clearly
> see how it would be useful to us, and if we ever do, we'd run into the
> situation you have, but worse because we haven't gone with clear naming
> schemes among the teams.
I definitely understand this issue, most of our teams are good about
using our conventions, but some do not and it leads to a bit of chaos
when troubleshooting configs at times.
>> 2) If so, what would be a preferred syntax to implement this?
>> =A0 * Override the current functionality so that if a LHS or RHS of a
>> members tuple doesn't match a host or service, host groups are
>> assumed?
>
> I'd prefer the above option. nagios already does this kind of assumption
> making in macro processing and such (from what I make), so it wouldn't
> be too much of a deviation in how things are done, in my opinion.
Thanks for the feedback, I like this idea better as well as it doesn't
change the struct representing the servicegroup.
Will most likely start working on this internally next week.
- Max
This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]
> I could see this being useful for us, we also use nagios internally
> extensively and a few teams share one distributed setup we have. we
> don't currently make extensive use of servicegroups, but I can clearly
> see how it would be useful to us, and if we ever do, we'd run into the
> situation you have, but worse because we haven't gone with clear naming
> schemes among the teams.
I definitely understand this issue, most of our teams are good about
using our conventions, but some do not and it leads to a bit of chaos
when troubleshooting configs at times.
>> 2) If so, what would be a preferred syntax to implement this?
>> =A0 * Override the current functionality so that if a LHS or RHS of a
>> members tuple doesn't match a host or service, host groups are
>> assumed?
>
> I'd prefer the above option. nagios already does this kind of assumption
> making in macro processing and such (from what I make), so it wouldn't
> be too much of a deviation in how things are done, in my opinion.
Thanks for the feedback, I like this idea better as well as it doesn't
change the struct representing the servicegroup.
Will most likely start working on this internally next week.
- Max
This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]