On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 07:17:30PM +0100, Krzysztof Ol?dzki wrote: (...) > >"events" by itself might not be the proper name then. For instance, a > >timeout is precisely a lack of event. > > It's a matter of definition, like if 0 is or is not a natural number. > For me timeout *is* one of events, but no problem - we can choose a name > that is intuitive for everyone. > > >Maybe simply "errors" ? The > >other ones are not errors, just plain valid status codes after all. > > OK, but we are not only going to observing errors, but also succesfull > connections to clear error counter. So maybe simple "layer4" (for tcp) > and "layer7" (for http) might be OK?
If you see various uses of these levels, then yes, I agree. > >yes, precisely. Another advantage would be that we could also > >allow the statement on regular backend config (even defaults) > >when it's supposed to be the same for all servers. It would > >then be handled just like the "source" keyword : per-server, > >then per-backend. > > Right. A backend/default value is important. However, I think we: > - must use the same syntax for both backend's and server's configuration, > - don't need to require to always specify all parameters > - should keep current type of names: "type value" (not "to", "by", > "after". > > So, I'll be more happy with "on-error fail-check" than with "by > fail-check", etc. OK, that's fine by me. I trust you to find an intuitive language :-) Best regards, Willy
