pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] Duplicate Names in the PMNS - seeking consensus

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Duplicate Names in the PMNS - seeking consensus
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:13:19 -0500 (EST)
Cc: PCP <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <54BA00E9.7050504@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <54BA00E9.7050504@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: aA9odiT3OJrsTF64ZXsTa2G2Xa06Mg==
Thread-topic: Duplicate Names in the PMNS - seeking consensus
Hi Ken,

----- Original Message -----
> [...]
> This does not work at all "as is".  It can be made to work, but that
> involves changing scores of source files ... the result is an ugly hack
> hiding a git branch and I'm not going to commit that to the dev branch.
> 
> On reflection, I think there are 2 alternatives:
> 
> 1. change the default behaviour to allow duplicates and strip out all
> the "no duplicates" stuff, or
> 
> 2. drop all pretence at supporting duplicate names and rip out the
> associated non-working stuff.
> 
> Thoughts?

Could you send a link to the "ugly hack" branch?  It'd be good to know
just how invasive the needed changes are before we make a call.

The only namespace trickery that I have seen used "in the wild" is the
dynamic namespace agent re-routing thing, as implemented in pmdasample
(sample.secret.foo.bar.max.redirect) already.  That's been used in one
production deployment I know of.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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