Casey,
Can you give me a level set of what your thinking is now? I think it's
global control of all index types + overrides on a per-type basis. Fwiw,
I'm totally for that, but I want to make sure I'm not imposing my
pre-concieved notions on your consensus-driven ones.
-D....
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am suggesting that, yes. The configs are essentially the same as yours,
> except there is an override specified at the top level. Without that, in
> order to specify both HDFS and ES have batch sizes of 100, you have to
> explicitly configure each. It's less that I'm trying to have backwards
> compatibility and more that I'm trying to make the majority case easy: both
> writers write everything to a specified index name with a specified batch
> size (which is what we have now). Beyond that, I want to allow for
> specifying an override for the config on a writer-by-writer basis for those
> who need it.
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> wrote:
>
> > Are you saying we support all of these variants? I realize you are
> trying
> > to have some backwards compatibility, but this also makes it harder for a
> > user to grok (for me at least).
> >
> > Personally I like my original example as there are fewer sub-structures,
> > like 'writerConfig', which makes the whole thing simpler and easier to
> > grok. But maybe others will think your proposal is just as easy to grok.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, so here's what I'm thinking based on the discussion:
> > >
> > > - Keeping the configs that we have now (batchSize and index) as
> > defaults
> > > for the unspecified writer-specific case
> > > - Adding the config Nick suggested
> > >
> > > *Base Case*:
> > > {
> > > }
> > >
> > > - all writers write all messages
> > > - index named the same as the sensor for all writers
> > > - batchSize of 1 for all writers
> > >
> > > *Writer-non-specific case*:
> > > {
> > > "index" : "foo"
> > > ,"batchSize" : 100
> > > }
> > >
> > > - All writers write all messages
> > > - index is named "foo", different from the sensor for all writers
> > > - batchSize is 100 for all writers
> > >
> > > *Writer-specific case without filters*
> > > {
> > > "index" : "foo"
> > > ,"batchSize" : 1
> > > , "writerConfig" :
> > > {
> > > "elasticsearch" : {
> > > "batchSize" : 100
> > > }
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > - All writers write all messages
> > > - index is named "foo", different from the sensor for all writers
> > > - batchSize is 1 for HDFS and 100 for elasticsearch writers
> > > - NOTE: I could override the index name too
> > >
> > > *Writer-specific case with filters*
> > > {
> > > "index" : "foo"
> > > ,"batchSize" : 1
> > > , "writerConfig" :
> > > {
> > > "elasticsearch" : {
> > > "batchSize" : 100,
> > > "when" : "exists(field1)"
> > > },
> > > "hdfs" : {
> > > "when" : "false"
> > > }
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > - ES writer writes messages which have field1, HDFS doesn't
> > > - index is named "foo", different from the sensor for all writers
> > > - 100 for elasticsearch writers
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Carolyn Duby <cd...@hortonworks.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > For larger installations you need to control what is indexed so you
> > don’t
> > > > end up with a nasty elastic search situation and so you can mine the
> > data
> > > > later for reports and training ml models.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Carolyn
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 1/13/17, 9:40 AM, "Casey Stella" <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >OH that's a good idea!
> > > > >
> > > > >On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I like the "Index Filtering" option based on the flexibility that
> it
> > > > >> provides. Should each output (HDFS, ES, etc) have its own
> > > configuration
> > > > >> settings? For example, aren't things like batching handled
> > separately
> > > > for
> > > > >> HDFS versus Elasticsearch?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Something along the lines of...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> {
> > > > >> "hdfs" : {
> > > > >> "when": "exists(field1)",
> > > > >> "batchSize": 100
> > > > >> },
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "elasticsearch" : {
> > > > >> "when": "true",
> > > > >> "batchSize": 1000,
> > > > >> "index": "squid"
> > > > >> }
> > > > >> }
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Yeah, I tend to like the first option too. Any opposition to
> that
> > > > from
> > > > >> > anyone?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The points brought up are good ones and I think that it may be
> > > worth a
> > > > >> > broader discussion of the requirements of indexing in a separate
> > dev
> > > > list
> > > > >> > thread. Maybe a list of desires with coherent use-cases
> > justifying
> > > > them
> > > > >> so
> > > > >> > we can think about how this stuff should work and where the
> > natural
> > > > >> > extension points should be. Afterall, we need to toe the line
> > > between
> > > > >> > engineering and overengineering for features nobody will want.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I'm not sure about the extensions to the standard fields. I'm
> > torn
> > > > >> between
> > > > >> > the notions that we should have no standard fields vs we should
> > > have a
> > > > >> > boatload of standard fields (with most of them empty). I
> exchange
> > > > >> > positions fairly regularly on that question. ;) It may be
> worth a
> > > dev
> > > > >> list
> > > > >> > discussion to lay out how you imagine an extension of standard
> > > fields
> > > > and
> > > > >> > how it might look as implemented in Metron.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Casey
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Casey
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Kyle Richardson <
> > > > >> > kylerichards...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > I'll second my preference for the first option. I think the
> > > ability
> > > > to
> > > > >> > use
> > > > >> > > Stellar filters to customize indexing would be a big win.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I'm glad Matt brought up the point about data lake and CEP. I
> > > think
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > a really important use case that we need to consider. Take a
> > > simple
> > > > >> > > example... If I have data coming in from 3 different firewall
> > > > vendors
> > > > >> > and 2
> > > > >> > > different web proxy/url filtering vendors and I want to be
> able
> > to
> > > > >> > analyze
> > > > >> > > that data set, I need the data to be indexed all together
> > (likely
> > > in
> > > > >> > HDFS)
> > > > >> > > and to have a normalized schema such that IP address, URL, and
> > > user
> > > > >> name
> > > > >> > > (to take a few) can be easily queried and aggregated. I can
> also
> > > > >> envision
> > > > >> > > scenarios where I would want to index data based on attributes
> > > other
> > > > >> than
> > > > >> > > sensor, business unit or subsidiary for example.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I've been wanted to propose extending our 7 standard fields to
> > > > include
> > > > >> > > things like URL and user. Is there community interest/support
> > for
> > > > >> moving
> > > > >> > in
> > > > >> > > that direction? If so, I'll start a new thread.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > -Kyle
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Matt Foley <ma...@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Ah, I see. If overriding the default index name allows
> using
> > > the
> > > > >> same
> > > > >> > > > name for multiple sensors, then the goal can be achieved.
> > > > >> > > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > > > --Matt
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On 1/12/17, 3:30 PM, "Casey Stella" <ceste...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Oh, you could! Let's say you have a syslog parser with
> > data
> > > > from
> > > > >> > > > sources 1
> > > > >> > > > 2 and 3. You'd end up with one kafka queue with 3
> parsers
> > > > >> attached
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > that
> > > > >> > > > queue, each picking part the messages from source 1, 2
> and
> > > 3.
> > > > >> > They'd
> > > > >> > > > go
> > > > >> > > > through separate enrichment and into the indexing
> > topology.
> > > > In
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > indexing topology, you could specify the same index name
> > > > "syslog"
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > > > all
> > > > >> > > > of the messages go into the same index for CEP querying
> if
> > > so
> > > > >> > > desired.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Matt Foley <
> > > ma...@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Syslog is hell on parsers – I know, I worked at
> LogLogic
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > >> > > > previous
> > > > >> > > > > life. It makes perfect sense to route different lines
> > > from
> > > > >> > syslog
> > > > >> > > > through
> > > > >> > > > > different appropriate parsers. But a lot of what the
> > > > parsers
> > > > >> do
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > > > identify consistent subsets of metadata and annotate
> it
> > –
> > > > eg,
> > > > >> > > > src_ip_addr,
> > > > >> > > > > event timestamps, etc. Once those metadata are
> > annotated
> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > available
> > > > >> > > > > with common field names, why doesn’t it make sense to
> > > index
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > messages
> > > > >> > > > > together, for CEP querying? I think Splunk has
> > > illustrated
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> > > > model.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On 1/12/17, 3:00 PM, "Casey Stella" <
> ceste...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > yeah, I mean, honestly, I think the approach that
> > > we've
> > > > >> taken
> > > > >> > > for
> > > > >> > > > > sources
> > > > >> > > > > which aggregate different types of data is to
> > provide
> > > > >> filters
> > > > >> > > at
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > parser
> > > > >> > > > > level and have multiple parser topologies (with
> > > > different,
> > > > >> > > > possibly
> > > > >> > > > > mutually exclusive filters) running. This would
> be
> > a
> > > > >> > > completely
> > > > >> > > > > separate
> > > > >> > > > > sensor. Imagine a syslog data source that
> > aggregates
> > > > and
> > > > >> you
> > > > >> > > > want to
> > > > >> > > > > pick
> > > > >> > > > > apart certain pieces of messages. This is why the
> > > > initial
> > > > >> > > > thought and
> > > > >> > > > > architecture was one index per sensor.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Matt Foley <
> > > > >> > ma...@apache.org>
> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > I’m thinking that CEP (Complex Event Processing)
> > is
> > > > >> > contrary
> > > > >> > > > to the
> > > > >> > > > > idea
> > > > >> > > > > > of silo-ing data per sensor.
> > > > >> > > > > > Now it’s true that some of those sensors are
> > already
> > > > >> > > > aggregating
> > > > >> > > > > data from
> > > > >> > > > > > multiple sources, so maybe I’m wrong here.
> > > > >> > > > > > But it just seems to me that the “data lake”
> > > insights
> > > > >> come
> > > > >> > > from
> > > > >> > > > > being able
> > > > >> > > > > > to make decisions over the whole mass of data
> > rather
> > > > than
> > > > >> > > just
> > > > >> > > > > vertical
> > > > >> > > > > > slices of it.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > On 1/12/17, 2:15 PM, "Casey Stella" <
> > > > ceste...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Hey Matt,
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Thanks for the comment!
> > > > >> > > > > > 1. At the moment, we only have one index
> name,
> > > the
> > > > >> > > default
> > > > >> > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > which is
> > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > sensor name but that's entirely up to the
> > user.
> > > > This
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > > sensor
> > > > >> > > > > > specific,
> > > > >> > > > > > so it'd be a separate config for each
> sensor.
> > > If
> > > > we
> > > > >> > want
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > build
> > > > >> > > > > > multiple
> > > > >> > > > > > indices per sensor, we'd have to think
> > carefully
> > > > >> about
> > > > >> > > how
> > > > >> > > > to do
> > > > >> > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > would be a bigger undertaking. I guess I
> can
> > > see
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > use,
> > > > >> > > > though
> > > > >> > > > > > (redirect
> > > > >> > > > > > messages to one index vs another based on a
> > > > predicate
> > > > >> > for
> > > > >> > > > a given
> > > > >> > > > > > sensor).
> > > > >> > > > > > Anyway, not where I was originally thinking
> > that
> > > > this
> > > > >> > > > discussion
> > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > go,
> > > > >> > > > > > but it's an interesting point.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > 2. I hadn't thought through the
> implementation
> > > > quite
> > > > >> > yet,
> > > > >> > > > but we
> > > > >> > > > > don't
> > > > >> > > > > > actually have a splitter bolt in that
> > topology,
> > > > just
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> > > > spout
> > > > >> > > > > that goes
> > > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > the elasticsearch writer and also to the
> hdfs
> > > > writer.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Matt Foley
> <
> > > > >> > > > ma...@apache.org>
> > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Casey, good to have controls like this.
> > > Couple
> > > > >> > > > questions:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > 1. Regarding the “index” : “squid”
> > name/value
> > > > pair,
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > index name
> > > > >> > > > > > > expected to always be a sensor name? Or
> is
> > > the
> > > > >> given
> > > > >> > > > json
> > > > >> > > > > structure
> > > > >> > > > > > > subordinate to a sensor name in zookeeper?
> > Or
> > > > can
> > > > >> we
> > > > >> > > > build
> > > > >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > >> > > > > > > indexes with this new specification,
> > > > independent of
> > > > >> > > > sensor?
> > > > >> > > > > Should
> > > > >> > > > > > there
> > > > >> > > > > > > actually be a list of “indexes”, ie
> > > > >> > > > > > > { “indexes” : [
> > > > >> > > > > > > {“index” : “name1”,
> > > > >> > > > > > > …
> > > > >> > > > > > > },
> > > > >> > > > > > > {“index” : “name2”,
> > > > >> > > > > > > …
> > > > >> > > > > > > } ]
> > > > >> > > > > > > }
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > 2. Would the filtering / writer selection
> > > logic
> > > > >> take
> > > > >> > > > place in
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > indexing
> > > > >> > > > > > > topology splitter bolt? Seems like that
> > would
> > > > have
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > smallest
> > > > >> > > > > > impact on
> > > > >> > > > > > > current implementation, no?
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Sorry if these are already answered in
> > > PR-415, I
> > > > >> > > haven’t
> > > > >> > > > had
> > > > >> > > > > time to
> > > > >> > > > > > > review that one yet.
> > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > > > > > > --Matt
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > On 1/12/17, 12:55 PM, "Michael Miklavcic"
> <
> > > > >> > > > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > I like the flexibility and
> > expressibility
> > > of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > first
> > > > >> > > > > option
> > > > >> > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > > Stellar
> > > > >> > > > > > > filters.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > M
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Casey
> > > > Stella <
> > > > >> > > > > > ceste...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > As of METRON-652 <
> > > > https://github.com/apache/
> > > > >> > > > > > > incubator-metron/pull/415>, we
> > > > >> > > > > > > > will have decoupled the indexing
> > > > >> configuration
> > > > >> > > > from the
> > > > >> > > > > > enrichment
> > > > >> > > > > > > > configuration. As an immediate
> > > follow-up
> > > > to
> > > > >> > > that,
> > > > >> > > > I'd
> > > > >> > > > > like to
> > > > >> > > > > > > provide the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > ability to turn off and on writers
> via
> > > the
> > > > >> > > > configs. I'd
> > > > >> > > > > like
> > > > >> > > > > > to get
> > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > > >> > > > > > > > community feedback on how the
> > > > functionality
> > > > >> > > should
> > > > >> > > > work,
> > > > >> > > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > y'all are
> > > > >> > > > > > > > amenable. :)
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > As of now, we have 3 possible
> writers
> > > > which
> > > > >> can
> > > > >> > > be
> > > > >> > > > used
> > > > >> > > > > in the
> > > > >> > > > > > > indexing
> > > > >> > > > > > > > topology:
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > - Solr
> > > > >> > > > > > > > - Elasticsearch
> > > > >> > > > > > > > - HDFS
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > HDFS is always used, elasticsearch
> or
> > > > solr is
> > > > >> > > used
> > > > >> > > > > depending
> > > > >> > > > > > on how
> > > > >> > > > > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > > > start the indexing topology.
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > A couple of proposals come to mind
> > > > >> immediately:
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > *Index Filtering*
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > You would be able to specify a
> filter
> > as
> > > > >> > defined
> > > > >> > > > by a
> > > > >> > > > > stellar
> > > > >> > > > > > > statement
> > > > >> > > > > > > > (likely a reuse of the StellarFilter
> > > that
> > > > >> > exists
> > > > >> > > > in the
> > > > >> > > > > > Parsers)
> > > > >> > > > > > > which
> > > > >> > > > > > > > would allow you to indicate on a
> > > > >> > > > message-by-message basis
> > > > >> > > > > > whether or
> > > > >> > > > > > > not to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > write the message.
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > The semantics of this would be as
> > > follows:
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > - Default (i.e. unspecified) is
> to
> > > pass
> > > > >> > > > everything
> > > > >> > > > > through
> > > > >> > > > > > (hence
> > > > >> > > > > > > > backwards compatible with the
> > current
> > > > >> > default
> > > > >> > > > config).
> > > > >> > > > > > > > - Messages which have the
> > associated
> > > > >> stellar
> > > > >> > > > statement
> > > > >> > > > > > evaluate
> > > > >> > > > > > > to true
> > > > >> > > > > > > > for the writer type will be
> > written,
> > > > >> > otherwise
> > > > >> > > > not.
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Sample indexing config which would
> > write
> > > > out
> > > > >> no
> > > > >> > > > messages
> > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > HDFS and
> > > > >> > > > > > > write
> > > > >> > > > > > > > out only messages containing a field
> > > > called
> > > > >> > > > "field1":
> > > > >> > > > > > > > {
> > > > >> > > > > > > > "index" : "squid"
> > > > >> > > > > > > > ,"batchSize" : 100
> > > > >> > > > > > > > ,"filters" : {
> > > > >> > > > > > > > "HDFS" : "false"
> > > > >> > > > > > > > ,"ES" : "exists(field1)"
> > > > >> > > > > > > > }
> > > > >> > > > > > > > }
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > *Index On/Off Switch*
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > A simpler solution would be to just
> > > > provide a
> > > > >> > > list
> > > > >> > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > writers
> > > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > write
> > > > >> > > > > > > > messages. The semantics would be as
> > > > follows:
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > - If the list is unspecified,
> then
> > > the
> > > > >> > default
> > > > >> > > > is to
> > > > >> > > > > write
> > > > >> > > > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > > > messages
> > > > >> > > > > > > > for every writer in the indexing
> > > > topology
> > > > >> > > > > > > > - If the list is specified, then
> a
> > > > writer
> > > > >> > will
> > > > >> > > > write
> > > > >> > > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > > messages
> > > > >> > > > > > > if and
> > > > >> > > > > > > > only if it is named in the list.
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Sample indexing config which turns
> off
> > > > HDFS
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > keeps on
> > > > >> > > > > > > Elasticsearch:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > {
> > > > >> > > > > > > > "index" : "squid"
> > > > >> > > > > > > > ,"batchSize" : 100
> > > > >> > > > > > > > ,"writers" : [ "ES" ]
> > > > >> > > > > > > > }
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for the feedback!
> > > > Also, if
> > > > >> > you
> > > > >> > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > any
> > > > >> > > > > > other,
> > > > >> > > > > > > better
> > > > >> > > > > > > > ideas than the ones presented here,
> > let
> > > me
> > > > >> know
> > > > >> > > > too.
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Casey
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org>
> >
>
