Re: plans

[Martin Pala]

Christian Hopp wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Martin Pala wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Christian Hopp wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > We could also make global methods.
> > >
> > >      
> > This could be probably usefull. We have similar problem with alert
> > statements (global alert statement could save lot of space).
> >    
>
> That might be the only difficult implementation part.  Shall we copy
> all global method into each service... or do we copy it in case of
> reference.  What about global<->local name clashes?  Do we overwrite
> or is it a collision?
>
>  
I think about following behaviour for global lists according to above 
discussion:

Let all types of services (process, file, directory and device) inherite 
global list of exec/methods and alerts. In the case that exec/method or 
alert entry has the same name localy, it is overriden by local statement 
(it has higher priority).

Two ways for this conflict solution:

1.) Monit will build lists staticaly during configuration parsing. Each 
list service's alert (and) exec list is initialized first by global list 
values and then local values are added. In the case that the name 
already exists (global value) it is replaced (by local value).
ADVANTAGE: simplifies configuration + "simple" implementation (just 
through parser/p.y modification) (maybe pseudo advantage)
DISADVANTAGE: waste of memory by holding multiple instances of the same 
value - it is internally equivalent to present Monit version

2.) Monit will build lists dynamicaly each time it needs to use the list 
- there is only one (global) instance of global exec/methods list and 
one instance of alert list (to save memory) + each service has its local 
lists - Monit will make intersection similar to point 1.) and create 
list to use in following action in the buffer.
ADVANTAGE: simplifies configuration
DISADVANTAGE: waste of CPU time by building the list each time it is needed


Conclusion:
Solutions 1.) and 2.) are approximatelly equal. Overhead to CPU or 
memory usage isn't critical in both solutions. Solution 2.) looks more 
sophisticated to me, but maybe 1.) could be better because of possible 
simplicity.


Martin

P.S We can maybe schedule global alert + global exec statements for 
monit post 4.0 (4.1 or 5.0?) to allow release 4.0 soon (there is enough 
changes in present CVS i think to release new version and batlle proof it :)