RFC - Feature Template overrides Definition

[Mark Eisenblaetter]

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Andreas Ericsson <ae at op5.se> wrote:

> Mark Eisenblaetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Andreas Ericsson <ae at op5.se> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > Should we do this in this thread or in the initial thread?
> >
>
> In this thread please. The other one is too old for me to fully remember.
>

>
> >
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Latest checkout pretty much always.
>
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > there are both funktions in xodtemplate.c and i can't find one wrong
> > renaming.
> >
>
> "both" is not applicable in this case, as there are 3 function names in
> use.
> xodtemplate_clean_additive_string()
> xodtemplate_clean_strings()
> xodtemplate_clean_string()
>
> It used to be the first, you renamed it to the second and you're calling
> it
> as the third.


ok know i a little confused.

I found the funktion xodtemplate_clean_additive_strings were all variables
are checked by xodtemplate_clean_additive_string if there ist any + left.
For me that are two different funktions.

And I tried to renmame xodtemplate_clean_additive_string in
xodtemplate_clean_string
and xodtemplate_clean_additive_strings in xodtemplate_clean_strings



>
> > 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
> >
>
> Pick one name and then use that everywhere. You picked one and used
> another,
> which doesn't work. It's like declaring a variable named "foo" and then
> trying to get the value of it by saying "bar". It doesn't work.


It sound to me that we don't talk about the same funktions
i added the xodtemplate_change_string for the new behavior

and modified the two funktions xodtemplate_clean_additive_string and
xodtemplate_clean_additive_strings
that they handle the cleaning for my '=' in the same way they handle the
'+'.


>
> Besides, it looked to me as if you were using your function wherever
> xodtemplate_clean_additive_string() was used earlier, which should mean
> they're interchangeable whenever there is no '=', correct?


Yes, my only change were
-    if(*str!=NULL && *str[0]=='+'){
+    if(*str!=NULL && (*str[0]=='+' || *str[0]=='=')){
And the name, of course.


>
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> That's why i start to write the patch but it's my first C++ patch and
> my
> > programming skills are not the best.
> >
>
> Well, we all have to start somewhere. Although, for the record, Nagios is
> written in C, not C++ :P
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.monitoring-lists.org/archive/developers/attachments/20080214/8e953fb3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Nagios-devel mailing list
Nagios-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-devel