Re: Status 4.0

[Jan-Henrik Haukeland]

Martin Pala <address@hidden> writes:

> only timeout statement question is open - we can either:
>
> 1.) keep current behavior

I suggest that we keep the current behaviour for simplicity. But you
are right about that the changed code may generate a bunch of alerts,
as in your example:

 if failed host www.tildeslash.com port 80 protocol http then alert

Actually I didn't see this before you pointed it out. But looking at
the current code, as far as I can see, this is *only* relevant for the
above connection test, all the other if-tests (checksum, size and so
on) sets the old value to the new value, so they will only report real
changes.

I know it is a far shoot, but it may even be interesting for
historical reasons to get many "connection failed" alerts :)

Anyway I still strongly feel that we should keep the current timeout
statement as it is and _not_ change it. After the release and if it
turns out to be a problem after all, we can implement the solution you
suggest here:

> 3.) support standalone timeout limits for every statement (as
> described in previous mail)

#

> I have farewell party today evening (i'm starting civil service on
> monday), so i can't do much work on monit until friday.

Have a nice party! 

-- 
Jan-Henrik Haukeland