[naemon-dev] Ideas about future features

[Robin Sonefors]

On 2013-12-27 21:40, Matthias Eble wrote:
>> I think the current flat config file syntax is too old and not flexible enough.  I would love to be
>> able to do things like define new types, why only host and services, why not just call them
>> whatever you want, like I want to define “applications” and assign whatever properties I want to them.
>
> hmm. How would that possible? Hosts and services are quite different
> when it comes to scheduling:
>     * trigger host check if service check fails
>     * trigger service checks when host goes down

So, what you're saying is that if a service specifies a host_name, the 
same thing happens as when a host specifies the same host as a parent, 
i.e. an implicit dependency is created. So they're in fact not at all 
different. Right?

I remember icinga2 talking about hosts not as something that can be 
checked at all, but as the worst state of all its services. That might 
even be a better way to handle hosts - though for some it might not, and 
it would be nice to be able to use the same behaviour with other object 
constellations than merely services-forms-host (children-forms-host, 
children-forms-service, hostgroup-forms-host, 
servicegroup-forms-service, and so on).

So, basically, abstract rules, and what Daniel said.