pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] Archive discovery, was Re: __pmDiscoverServices()/pmfind Enha

To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>, Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Archive discovery, was Re: __pmDiscoverServices()/pmfind Enhancements
From: Dave Brolley <brolley@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 11:55:20 -0400
Cc: PCP Mailing List <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140522135308.GB3460@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5373AAA7.70004@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0m7g5l2rzq.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <833772793.12546717.1400752403543.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20140522135308.GB3460@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
On 05/22/2014 09:53 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Hmm, above suggests we should've thought of an "options" parameter
to pmDiscoverServices(3).  [...]
One benefit of keeping options textual and similar is for their direct
transposition to a user interface like a config file or a pmfind
command line argument.  Sure, one could create some enum tuple widget
like ... __pmOptions (?), but then it needs to just hop between ascii
or multiple flags elsewhere anyway, with much more complexity.  (Or
did you simply imagine adding another 'char* options' parameter to
the discover api?)

I also like the idea of textual options. It makes it easy to extend the API without changing the ABI. Some options would be global, like the proposed timeout while others would be mechanism-specific, like the currently proposed maxThreads for active probing (although this could conceivably also be a global option).

I like the idea of the mechanism-specific options remaining with the mechanism string. I would not object to an additional global options string. I had thought about it but thought that it was too late to add it.

Dave

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