Hi, <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Andreas Ericsson <<a href="mailto:ae@op5.se">ae@op5.se</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="Ih2E3d">Mark Eisenblaetter wrote: > Hi List, > > in my last confusing topic I tried to explain a problem I've got with > configuration distribution design with nagios distributed monitoring. > > I hope to clarify this topic and present a solution. > > It would be nice if you can comment this again. > > Actual situation with Nagios 3.x: > If I would make my life easier with configuring nagios for my distributed > system I would define some templates to control the behavior on the master > or on the slave. > > f.e. on the slave a template would define a normal check_command, but no > freshness options. > > on the master server the same template name would result in some other > check_command inclusive freshness options and so on. > > With this possibility the service definitions on master _and_ on slave > servers would be identically but the different templates on both sides would > control "live checking" or "freshness checking". > > But for this it should be possible that a template made directive should be > able to override a directive from the service definition. > </div>Semantically, that's anathema. Plain and simple. A template should *never* be allowed to override the actual object's definitions. Adding exclusions to that simple rule would definitely muddy the waters between templates and objects.</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Besides that, I really don't see the point of it. If you have different templates on the two servers anyway, why not just leave the options you want overridden in the object configuration? If you could perhaps post your templates for your master and slave and one or two objects that use those template, I'm sure I could explain how you can accomplish what you want, although I'm quite sure already that you'd be off just fine if you left the template-controlled variables out of the objects completely and set them to what they should be in the templates on master and slave.</blockquote><div> Should we do this in this thread or in the initial thread? </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="Ih2E3d"> > I know that the default behavior is the other direction (template -> > service, but service directives are last significant). > > Since Nagios 3.x allows a template addition through the "+" notation my > thoughts goes in this direction. > What would be if you were allowed to inject a special character to your > template to override a service definition (for example). > > With attached patch I got exactly this behavior. > </div>I failed to see the point of your patch after having scrolled past 4 pages of function-renaming diff data. I *do* know that it doesn't even compile with the attached patch. Since it doesn't compile, I'm thinking you can't have tested this very well at all, and what you've actually got running is something else, which you're not at all sure works as per the current spec at all. </blockquote><div> Ok i will look at this. And will do more testing befor submitting the new version. one question is it better to patch against the last release or the last cvs checkout. I used the last checkout. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> It doesn't compile because you have renamed xodtemplate_clean_additive_string() to xodtemplate_clean_strings() and then call it as xodtemplate_clean_string(). That change is just plain noise and should never have made it into the diff. If you want me to review it, resend with a minimal set of changes so I can see where the logic happens without having to wade through page after page of nonsense.</blockquote><div> there are both funktions in xodtemplate.c and i can't find one wrong renaming. I don't want to produce double code so i used addaptive funktions to provide the Cleaning in my case. in line 98 - 99 you can see that i added my char (=) for cleanup in the xodtemplate_clean_additive_string funktion and added the handling of the check_command (Host Line 199 service 214) in the xodtemplate_clean_additive_strings funktions. In this case i tought it would be better to rename the funktion because they are not handling addaptive-only anymore. So what the "best" way to do in this case? 1. Double the xodtemplate_clean_additive_string and xodtemplate_clean_additive_strings 2. Use the both funktions an rename them 3. Use both funktions and don't touch the name </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> I'm not saying I'm against the idea, but if you want your patch accepted you need to put in at least a little effort. </blockquote></div>That's why i start to write the patch but it's my first C++ patch and my programming skills are not the best. Mark