On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This question has been asked before. The answer from Tobi was, in > brief, why not put this kind of information into a simple support file > as it does not directly change any aspect of how the RRD was > maintained or the data in it accessed. The other side of the argument > goes : because there is not much data and it is directly related to > the RRD it would be nice to keep it in the one file. The outcome... do > you see any of these things in an RRD today? And, of course, you are > free to make changes to the file layout for your own use.
Well, just because you CAN ghetto-hack around the lack of ability to describe your data doesn't mean you SHOULD. :) I can see an argument being made about it breaking compatibility with the existing rrd structs, but since it appears that has been done already in the devel version, what better time to add it. In order to prevent such problems in the future, it might make sense to lay out the data structs with a Type-Length-Value system which would allow adding of new data types without breaking compatibility. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6) -- Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Help mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/rrd-developers WebAdmin http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/lsg2.cgi
