Re: Dependecies

[Rory Toma]

On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 15:16, Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
> Rory Toma <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > I believe that this is more flexible, takes advantage of things monit
> > already does, and adds the least amount of code and complexity to the
> > existing code. (I.e. I spent some amount of time figuring out how to get
> > this in with the least amount of code)
> 
> That was some very good arguments :-) One request though, if not
> implemented, could you do: 'depend b c' as well?

Version 2.
However, the way things work:

check a
depend c
depend b

will create a Dependant_T object c and then object b. When I walk the
list, (I used the d->next idea) it will run thru them in reverse order.
So, it's sort of implemented, and I can formally clean it up after I get
this in and working.

-- 
Rory Toma               address@hidden
VP of Run Level 5       http://www.trs80.net
Digeo Digital           http://www.digeo.com

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part