<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 9 Feb 2010, at 11:41, Andreas Ericsson wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><br></font></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Any feedback? Some people might think there is a lack of development<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in Nagios :)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br>I'm kinda torn on this option. If Nagios is given the option to accept<br>check results via a socket rather than from temporary files, there's<br>no harm in having the checking daemons sit on a different server, with<br>possibly a feeder daemon in between to handle authentication, security<br>and multiplexing.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Cheers for the opinion.</div><div><br></div><div>This is not about having check results though - that's a completely different path of logic because if it was a check result then there's other processing like parent-child dependencies/notifications/event handlers could be invoked. This patch is about selectively changing or adding to existing retention data.</div><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>I'm for it, but I feel it would be redundant with a different fix.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I'm fine with ripping it out afterwards if there is a better way, but I'm erring on the side of functionality now rather than in some unspecified time in the future.</div><div><br></div><div>Ton</div><div><br></div></body></html>