Re: device stuff - cvs

[Jan-Henrik Haukeland]

Christian Hopp <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:

> > Errors should be reserved for stopping monit after parsing. I think
> > that using a statement without any effect is a warning because monit
> > may and should run. But using the word 'deprecated' is probably
> > unfortunate since the user may think that the statement has effect but
> > that he is recomended to use the new statement version. This is how
> > "deprecated" is used in e.g. Java, i.e. using a deprecated
> > method/class/whatever still works. In our case we should use the word
> > 'defunct' instead so the user knows that the statement has ceased to
> > exist. What do you think?
> 
> Let say obsolete!
> 
> The syntax is not available anymore! That means monit wont parse it
> successfully, anymore.  Thus, it is an error... IHMO.

Sorry to be such a nitpick, (can't help it :) but monit will actually
parse the statement successfully because we have a rule in the grammar
for it and monit will (successfully) issue a warning. But of course
the statement will not have any effect anymore which I guess was your
point :)

If you feel *very* strongly for stopping monit after such a statement
with an error message, I will not opose if you add cgf_errflag++ to
the statement but IMHO I still feel it is only a warning situation :)

My vote would be (-)0 then for making this an error.

-- 
Jan-Henrik Haukeland