On 2013-12-27 21:40, Matthias Eble wrote:
I think the current flat config file syntax is too old and not flexible enough. I would love to be able to do things like define new types, why only host and services, why not just call them whatever you want, like I want to define “applications” and assign whatever properties I want to them.hmm. How would that possible? Hosts and services are quite different when it comes to scheduling: * trigger host check if service check fails * trigger service checks when host goes down
So, what you're saying is that if a service specifies a host_name, the same thing happens as when a host specifies the same host as a parent, i.e. an implicit dependency is created. So they're in fact not at all different. Right?
I remember icinga2 talking about hosts not as something that can be checked at all, but as the worst state of all its services. That might even be a better way to handle hosts - though for some it might not, and it would be nice to be able to use the same behaviour with other object constellations than merely services-forms-host (children-forms-host, children-forms-service, hostgroup-forms-host, servicegroup-forms-service, and so on).
So, basically, abstract rules, and what Daniel said.
