pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] [RFC] pcp python patch

To: David Smith <dsmith@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] [RFC] pcp python patch
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:53:03 -0500 (EST)
Cc: pcp <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <546A44F0.1070001@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <54512E80.9090302@xxxxxxxxxx> <545A53B0.9030500@xxxxxxxxxx> <704052736.8837998.1415255680009.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <545CEE9A.5060007@xxxxxxxxxx> <615631257.11639679.1415673601327.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <54667179.1060605@xxxxxxxxxx> <370186244.15487866.1416205739744.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <546A44F0.1070001@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: rUBLr1xkPk/X4NUsa53RImGWYYNwSQ==
Thread-topic: pcp python patch

----- Original Message -----
> [...]
> This would only have affected anyone who called
> clear_metrics()/reset_metrics() or clear_indoms().
> 
> > Do we need a new API to allow new dictionary object
> > ref(s) to be pushed down to cpmda, overwriting the old?
> 
> Hmm, I'm not really seeing a use case for that with the way the PMDA
> class is currently written. What is your thought here?

Oh, I just had the impression from your earlier mail you weren't
completely satisfied that we'd covered off all the cases ... its
likely I've just misinterpreted that "except for [1]" reference.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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