pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] in search of pcpfans.git fche/pmwebd (graphite) branch review

To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Brolley <brolley@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] in search of pcpfans.git fche/pmwebd (graphite) branch review
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:13:44 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pcp developers <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140918203331.GB8153@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20140708004813.GF22029@xxxxxxxxxx> <704756615.50701778.1410922470036.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20140918203331.GB8153@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: 3izyv8GQZsrHNz8gaJXW/8c4KmlEOQ==
Thread-topic: in search of pcpfans.git fche/pmwebd (graphite) branch review

----- Original Message -----
> > > I just noticed mention above of "more useful [config file] format" -
> > set an alarm bell ringing - is that a backwards-compatible change?
> > (and which standard is referred to - the usual pcp .options format?
> > [...]
> 
> Yup, and no, it is not backward compatible.  [...]
> 

What is the resulting / user-observed behaviour when a new daemon
is started with the existing configuration format?

FWIW, another option is a format conversion tool, external to the
daemon, so that the old format can be gracefully retired without a
need to keep compat code forever inside the daemon.

cheers.

--
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>