[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Feature request: UDP generic protocol testing

From: Alex Black
Subject: RE: Feature request: UDP generic protocol testing
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:25:04 -0400

> It may be a useful idea, we'll have to think about this more. 
> No, this does not exist and I was just thinking aloud.

Ok. I would find it useful, I imagine others might too?  I get too many
failure emails  in some situations, when only one is desired.

> > An alternate idea would be to do
> > something like you have for service dependencies, using the depends 
> > keyword.
> I think I like the parenthesis idea better :) IMHO the syntax 
> is easier and more recognizable.


> Yes, thats how the alert system is programmed now. The only  
> overriding is if alert foo1 was defined in a check-entry, then only  
> the check-entry alert is sent to foo1. I agree that it is be more  
> logical if a check-entry override the global list. It's easy to  
> change this, but it will affect backward compatibility. What do  
> others think? Should this be changed?

If this change would cause backwards compatability problems perhaps the
functionality could be added in a slightly different way, perhaps
alert-override or something.

> --
> Jan-Henrik Haukeland
> Mobil +47 97141255
> --
> To unsubscribe:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]