pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] initial pass at fixing zbxpcp.so for Zabbix v3

To: Marko Myllynen <myllynen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] initial pass at fixing zbxpcp.so for Zabbix v3
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 19:33:32 -0500 (EST)
Cc: pcp developers <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <56DD5312.2030004@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <675485289.27235420.1457066754101.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <56DD5312.2030004@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: XqVHgUuDK+UsbjcQPwJkasxO24acXg==
Thread-topic: initial pass at fixing zbxpcp.so for Zabbix v3
Hi Marko,

----- Original Message -----
> On 2016-03-04 06:45, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > This switches between using v2/v3 interface based on presence or lack
> > of a named file.  This is a bit suboptimal as it still involves some
> > manual user interaction, but its better than having multiple shared
> > libraries I think.  If we could find some reliable way of detecting a
> > Zabbix 3 vs 2 install (?) at runtime, we'd be laughing.  [...]
> 
> Thanks, this is a nice idea [... snip comments re config files]

As discussed on IRC, I've changed it to make version detection dynamic
using a separate script, so that we avoid relying on the end-user doing
the configuration themselves.  Lightly tested, will flesh out the QA if
you're thinking this approach still looks OK at this stage?

One open question to my mind is whether we should make zbxpcp.so fail to
load if it cannot get the Zabbix version reliably, rather than continue
on with a default version.

cheers.

--
Nathan

Attachment: zabbix-version.patch
Description: Text Data

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