Re: timestamp monitoring + code simplification patch

[Jan-Henrik Haukeland]

Martin Pala <address@hidden> writes:

> CHECK [FILE|DIRECTORY|DEVICE] PATH options,...
> CHECK [PROCESS] name options,...

I think I like this one better, but your suggestion:

> CHECK [PROCESS|FILE|DIRECTORY|DEVICE] PATH options,...

are certainly nice and symmetrically. But the reasons I like the first
one better are

1) It looks a bit strange to say
   CHECK PROCESS "/var/run/sshd.pid"
    NAME ssh

   instead of 

   CHECK [PROCESS] sshd WITH PIDFILE "/var/run/sshd.pid"

2) Backward compability will, if not broken, require changes in the
   parser and logic I'm not sure I'm quite comfortable with.

3) In my opinion the first example does after all look more logical
   and the bonus is that it does not require any refactoring of the
   current grammar in the parser.

So the bottom line is that I suggest that we stick with:

CHECK [PROCESS] name [WITH PIDFILE] options,...

including PROCESS as optional and use the following for filesystem
checks:

CHECK [FILE|DIRECTORY|DEVICE] PATH options,...

What do you think?

-- 
Jan-Henrik Haukeland