Re: timestamp monitoring + code simplification patch

[Jan-Henrik Haukeland]

Christian Hopp <address@hidden> writes:

> The syntax is right now,
> 
> CHECK name PIDFILE path ...options... (1)
> 
> If we want to be "compatible" with (1) we need the following,
> 
> CHECK name [PIDFILE|DEVICE|DIRECTORY|FILE] path ...options...

But do we want to be quite that compatible? since it makes for some
awkward statement like.

> CHECK iplanet_stored FILE "/usr/iplanet/msg-ims1/config/stored.ckp"
> CHECK foo_dir DIRECTORY "/foo/directory"
> CHECK mylittlebigharddisk DEVICE /dev/hda1

IMO it looks better, simply to say:

CHECK FILE "/usr/iplanet/msg-ims1/config/stored.ckp"
CHECK DIRECTORY "/foo/directory"
CHECK DEVICE /dev/hda1

 [FILE, DIRECTORY and DEVICE will become reserved keywords.]

that way you are spared for making up imaginary descriptive names for
the file, directory and device like 'iplanet_stored'.

It will not crash with the current check statement either (1):

CHECK name PIDFILE PATH

To summarize, I vote +1 for using the following check statements:

CHECK name PIDFILE PATH
CHECK [FILE|DIRECTORY|DEVICE] PATH

In addition maybe include this variant for the process check statement
for symetrical reasons:

CHECK PROCESS name PIDFILE PATH

What do you think?

-- 
Jan-Henrik Haukeland