Hi Sebastian, Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
> > > this also means that use of the daemon should be transparent, > > to use ... for file paths this means at least when running local, > > that the curent directory of the rrdupdate command does matter ... > > > > when running remotely this is not the case and should probably be > > handled differenly ... > > Hrm ? as I might have mentioned before, I'm not a big fan of inconsis- > tent behavior - even it that's supposed to handle some specific cases > "more elegant". Imho that adds more confusion than benefit. Anyway, the > final decision is up to you, of course. so maybe I did not parse your previous emails on the subject too closely, but can you go into detail about how you propose to handle the path issue consistantly locally and remotely while keeping rrdtool update working the same way regardles if it is working directly with the file or through rrdcached ? after all this is also about consistancy. > > but then again, remote use of rrdcached will see some further changes > > with authentication and authorization anyway ... > > Yes, but (as far as I see it) that should be possible without breaking > backward-compatibility (since the fine-grained permission handling has > been included). not breaking backward compatibility or at least continuing to provideing the old interface as well is always a concern for me ... cheers tobi -- Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland http://it.oetiker.ch t...@oetiker.ch ++41 62 775 9902 / sb: -9900 _______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list rrd-developers@lists.oetiker.ch https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers