pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: pmie observations

To: "Davis, Todd C" <todd.c.davis@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: pmie observations
From: kenmcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:04:15 +1000 (EST)
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <29AD895CE780D511A8870002A50A666D04F9086F@hdsmsx106.hd.intel.com>
Reply-to: kenmcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: pcp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Davis, Todd C wrote:

> Thanks for the patch. ...

OK.

> As for the ineffective '|' operator issue I would rate
> this on the low end, probably a 2 on a scale of 1 to 10. Any series of
> alternate actions would better be done in a shell script and not in a pmie
> configuration file. My inclination would be to see '|' action operator
> dropped to avoid confusion. When I used it for the first time I expected the
> exit status of a shell script to be evaluated. If a fork fails, probably any
> other action attempt will fail also so why provide this functionality? This
> is a minor issue though since the documentation is correct.

The & and | operators do not have C semantics ... they are documented
as ..

        A & B   run A and then run B (unconditional)
        A | B   run A and only if that fails run B

I have corrected the code to _actually_ do this (thanks for pointing
out the problem).  Dropping the operator is not really an option ...
there are too many pmie scripts in the world ... I need to continue
to parse 'em all (albeit that the current implementation is sometimes
broken).

The fixes for all 3 problems you identified will be in the next open
source release.

Thanks.


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