Re: [Patch] Revised resource-support [aka. "proc"-support]

[Christian Hopp]

On 13 Aug 2002, Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:

> Christian Hopp <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > > Another thing, it doesn't make sense to have a
> > > resource statement without an action does it? And if you require an
> > > action you should also get out of the shift/reduce problem (and of
> > > course, you where right about that %left operates on tokens)
> >
> > I think it makes sense to have a default action to make config files
> > less full.
>
> Well it's going to look like: IF(expr) ? While this is a better syntax
> IMHO: IF(expr) THEN action. And it's really not that much more text.

Puny c-like programmer. (-: Who needs nowadays brackets for
expression. Syntax (to make it look nicer you can use any kind of our
flavorful filling words):

<resource> [<operator>] <limit> [<cycles>] [ACTION <action>]

operator is a choice of <, >, !=, greater, less, equal, notequal, gt, lt,
ne, eq.  But... WHO TOOK THE "=". (-: Request for feature... "'=' for
equality".  Somebody has made it a whitespace.  I know, it's there to
express, e.g.

   start program = "/bin/true"

Whether we...

1) disallow "=" as whitespace completely
2) allow "=" only in certain positions, like
    [set|start|stop] <options> [[=|] <value>]
3) disable "mathematical" operator short cuts "<,>,=,!=".

1) is easy, but not nice,  users might have to change config files
3) is easy, but comparison looks much nicer with "<,>,=,!="
2) a pile of work but enables 1&3.

Right now it's something in between. "<,>,!=" do work, "=" doesn't.

> > > > [zombie processes]
> > > *
> > The thing to remember... most probably we won't be even able to restart!
>
> There's that. But I guess that in most situations and for most servers
> it's possible to restart if we remove the pid file (as you hinted
> at). Anyway it's probably best to only send an alert and not assume to
> much.

Yep. So we do all other checks also after the zombie check, even if
it's a zombie.

> > > A good idea, I have to remove the new udp check code then. But this
> > > code isn't exactely what I want anyway.
> >
> > Maybe we should rest a bit about it and look in other
> > implementations (like netsaint they do dns testing et al.).
>
> Ah, I got hocked on that one, the current code works but is "bad form"
> as Captain Hook says. I'm tempted to leave it in unless I can recode
> it. I guess that I'll find a solution.

I think thats okay.  Maybe a note in the readme would be nice, in case
someone has trouble with it.

Bye,

C.Hopp


-- 
Christian Hopp                                email: address@hidden
Institut für Elektrische Informationstechnik             fon: +49-5323-72-2113
Technische Universität Clausthal                         fax: +49-5323-72-3197
  pgpkey: https://www.iei.tu-clausthal.de/pgp-keys/chopp.key.asc  (2001-11-22)