| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: pcp updates - pmdapapi update, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: pcp updates - pmdapapi update, Frank Ch. Eigler |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [pcp] [RFC] pcp python patch, David Smith |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [pcp] [RFC] pcp python patch, David Smith |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |