Re: timestamp monitoring + code simplification patch

[Martin Pala]

Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:

> Martin Pala <address@hidden> writes:
>
>  
>
> > CHECK [FILE|DIRECTORY|DEVICE] PATH options,...
> > CHECK [PROCESS] name options,...
> >    
>
> I think I like this one better, but your suggestion:
>
>  
>
> > CHECK [PROCESS|FILE|DIRECTORY|DEVICE] PATH options,...
> >    
>
> are certainly nice and symmetrically. But the reasons I like the first
> one better are
>
> 1) It looks a bit strange to say
>   CHECK PROCESS "/var/run/sshd.pid"
>    NAME ssh
My suggestion allows to use (more logical) verbose form as well. I thing 
following gives a sense:

CHECK PROCESS WITH PIDFILE "/var/run/sshd.pid"
 NAME ssh

(as mentioned WITH and PIDFILE could be void words)

>   instead of 
>
>   CHECK [PROCESS] sshd WITH PIDFILE "/var/run/sshd.pid"
>
> 2) Backward compability will, if not broken, require changes in the
>   parser and logic I'm not sure I'm quite comfortable with.
Yeah, it could be problem with compatibility, however for future 
development and clearness i think it will be better to have "symentric" 
solution and optional NAME statement)

> 3) In my opinion the first example does after all look more logical
>   and the bonus is that it does not require any refactoring of the
>   current grammar in the parser.
>
> So the bottom line is that I suggest that we stick with:
>
> CHECK [PROCESS] name [WITH PIDFILE] options,...
>
> including PROCESS as optional and use the following for filesystem
> checks:
>
> CHECK [FILE|DIRECTORY|DEVICE] PATH options,...
>
> What do you think?
>
>  
OK, i have no problem with your solution :)

Cheers,
Martin