Thoughts / request for feedback on extending servicegroup syntax to support host group -> services associated with a second hostgroup syntax

Hiren Patel hir3npatel at gmail.com
Sun Aug 16 17:00:26 CEST 2009


Max wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Hiren Patel<hir3npatel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I could see this being useful for us, we also use nagios internally
>> extensively and a few teams share one distributed setup we have. we
>> don't currently make extensive use of servicegroups, but I can clearly
>> see how it would be useful to us, and if we ever do, we'd run into the
>> situation you have, but worse because we haven't gone with clear naming
>> schemes among the teams.
> 
> I definitely understand this issue, most of our teams are good about
> using our conventions, but some do not and it leads to a bit of chaos
> when troubleshooting configs at times.
> 
>>> 2) If so, what would be a preferred syntax to implement this?
>>>   * Override the current functionality so that if a LHS or RHS of a
>>> members tuple doesn't match a host or service, host groups are
>>> assumed?
>> I'd prefer the above option. nagios already does this kind of assumption
>> making in macro processing and such (from what I make), so it wouldn't
>> be too much of a deviation in how things are done, in my opinion.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback, I like this idea better as well as it doesn't
> change the struct representing the servicegroup.
> 
> Will most likely start working on this internally next week. :)
> 

cool, let us know how it goes, or if we can help with anything.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july




More information about the Developers mailing list