On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 12:45 -0400, Carolyn Beeton wrote:
> When I submit the alarm system code, there will be a slight change in
> functionality around the process notifications from the Watchdog.
>
> Whereas now a separate notification method and list of contacts can be
> configured for each process (in the process.d/<process>.process.xml
> files), this will be replaced by calls to
> raiseAlarm("PROCESS_RESTARTED", processAlias) and
> raiseAlarm("PROCESS_FAILED_RESTART") in MonitoredProcess.cpp. If
> enabled, then emails will be sent to the system's configured list of
> contacts, for all monitored processes. I could achieve almost the
> same functionality by defining one alarm for each process, but this
> did not seem necessary to me. Does anyone disagree?
>
> At the moment, I have emails disabled for the PROCESS_RESTARTED one,
> and am only sending emails if the process fails restart, but this will
> be configurable and I can change the defaults if people want.
>
> Does the slight loss in flexibility in having a single list of
> contacts, vs a list per process, concern anyone? I do not plan to
> make the list of contacts configurable for each alarm.
I feel fairly strongly that we should just send it to one address - if
they want that to go to many people, they should configure that in their
mail server, not in sipXecs.
I think that just one system-wide alarm destination is plenty, with no
difference per service.
--
Scott Lawrence tel:+1.781.229.0533;ext=162 or sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
sipXecs project coordinator - SIPfoundry http://www.sipfoundry.org/sipXecs
CTO, Voice Solutions - Bluesocket Inc. http://www.bluesocket.com/
http://www.pingtel.com/
_______________________________________________
sipx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
