Hi Michael,

with rev 7075 the entity root coming from the simulation data file is replaced 
by the entity_root value of the configuration file.
I didn't make any changes concerning the logfile. As long as there is no one 
who will request a change, I will let is as it is.

Regards
   Lars

On Thursday, 13. May 2010 23:25, Bishop, Michael (ISB Linux/Telco) wrote:
> Lars -
>
> It is okay and legal to have 2 instances of your plugin specified (as 2
> stanzas) in the openhpi.conf file.  What distinguishes these stanzas is the
> unique entity_root value.  Your plugin should be designed to handle this. 
> In the case of the first stanza, your plugin would add the stanza's
> entity_root value to the path of all resources discovered in the simulation
> file that are associated with this stanza.  In the case of the second
> stanza, your plugin would add that stanza's entity_root value to the path
> of all resources discovered in the simulation file that are associated with
> this stanza, and so on.  I would attempt to persuade you that the
> entity_root value does not even belong in the simulation data file.  The
> source of record for the entity_root is openhpi.conf.
>
> Each stanza is unique - in that it has its own entity_root, and its own
> simulation file.  That should allow the plugin to do the right thing - and
> avoid getting the resources mixed up.
>
> In the case of the log files, I'm not sure what to do.  Perhaps each stanza
> should specify its own log file.  Does that work?  I'm not sure what is the
> best solution here.  Perhaps the plugin should be smart and recoginize a
> duplicate log file name - and not attempt to open it a second time - but
> rather just share the file id that was created on the first file open
> operation.  So in this case, a user could set up a common log file that
> would be shared among the stanzas in openhpi.conf - and the plugin would
> share the file id for each entity_root that it is using.  Or the user could
> specify unique log file names for each entity_root - and the plugin would
> use the appropriate one - depending on what resources it is reporting on. 
> I'm just offering some ideas here.
>
> Please note that I'm not trying to create more work for you - I'm simply
> giving you my opinion on how I would expect/want it to work.
>
> --michael
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lars Wetzel [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 2:58 PM
> > To: Bishop, Michael (ISB Linux/Telco)
> > Subject: Re: [Openhpi-devel] new simulator - cannot build RPMs
> >
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > you did everything correct.
> > It is as you wrote and it is an open issue:
> > In the beginning of the plugin implementation I had it on the
> > to do list -
> > Decide if the replacement of the root entry in the simulation
> > data by the
> > root entry of the configuration file makes sense.
> > I forgot it.
> > So there is still the configuration entry entity path as a
> > must, but it isn't
> > used at the moment. The simulator works with the data from the file.
> >
> > But now I'm really unsure, if the start of two instances will
> > work in case the
> > entity path comes from the configuration file:
> > I saw also the problem with the logfiles. Both plugin
> > instances wrote in the
> > same logfiles. So, if both instances take the first logfile
> > entry of the
> > configuration file (both instances have the same plugin name:
> > new_simulator)
> > how can I ensure that the second instance will take the
> > correct entity path
> > entry? I have to investigate it.
> >
> > My opinion:
> > I think, it could be worth to discuss it separately, if it is
> > better to take
> > the root ep from the data file or from the configuration file.
> >
> > I will do the change in both direction - remove the
> > configuration file entry
> > or replace the data input by the configuration entry.
> > My favorite it to remove the configuration entry. So you will
> > be able to run
> > more than one instance.
> >
> > Regards
> >    Lars
> >
> > On Thursday, 13. May 2010 22:20, you wrote:
> > > Lars -
> > >
> > > I also tested your new simulator with multiple stanzas in
> >
> > the openhpi.conf
> >
> > > file.  All I changed from the first stanza to the second
> >
> > stanza was the
> >
> > > entity_root value.
> > >
> > > On the first stanza, I used: {SYSTEM_CHASSIS, 9} as you show in the
> > > commented stanza for your plugin.
> > >
> > > On the second stanza, I used:  {SYSTEM_CHASSIS, 10}
> > >
> > > I also added a second simulation.data file call
> >
> > simulation.data10 - but
> >
> > > instead of referring to {SYSTEM_CHASSIS, 1} as is the case with the
> > > simulation.data you included, I changed this to {SYSTEM_CHASSIS, 2}.
> > >
> > > While this all seems to work with hpitop and hpitree -
> >
> > there is something
> >
> > > weird going on.  No where in the output of hpitop or
> >
> > hpitree is there any
> >
> > > reference to my entity_root values that I specified in the
> >
> > openhpi.conf
> >
> > > file.  It seems as though your simulator plugin is ignoring
> >
> > the entity_root
> >
> > > values that I am using in the openhpi.conf file.  Every
> >
> > entity path should
> >
> > > have either {SYSTEM_CHASSIS, 9} or {SYSTEM_CHASSIS, 10} at
> >
> > the root of the
> >
> > > path as specified in the openhpi.conf file - but instead,
> >
> > it appears that
> >
> > > your plugin is taking the entity_root value directly from the
> > > simulation.data files.
> > >
> > > I'm including my openhpi.conf file, my 2 simulation.data
> >
> > files, and the
> >
> > > output of hpitop, and hpitree - so that perhaps you can have a look.
> > >
> > > Pehaps I have this misconfigured this.  Please let me know.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --michael
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Michael Bishop
> > > Enterprise Servers and Storage (ISB Linux/Telco)
> > > Hewlett-Packard Company
> > > 3404 E. Harmony Rd.  Bldg. 5L, Post B7,  Mailstop 42
> > > Fort Collins, CO  80528-9599
> > > Phone: 970-898-4393
> > > E-Mail: [email protected]
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Lars Wetzel [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 1:26 PM
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > Cc: Bishop, Michael (ISB Linux/Telco); Sutula, Bryan (Open Source
> > > > Program Office); Andy Cress
> > > > Subject: Re: [Openhpi-devel] new simulator - cannot build RPMs
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi together,
> > > >
> > > > no I didn't test it until 5 min ago:
> > > > I duplicated the simulation.data file, replaced the EP
> >
> > root entry and
> >
> > > > duplicate the libnew_simulator entry in the openhpi.conf file.
> > > >
> > > > And it works - with some limitiations:
> > > > - Both plugin instances use the same logfiles.
> > > > - I didn't run any test cases
> > > >
> > > > A missing feature allows it: The plugin doesn't replace the
> > > > root - entry of
> > > > the EP. First I had it on the "to do" list, later I forgot it
> > > > and now I think
> > > > it could make sense not to change it. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Btw. I will replace the default entry to an absolute path in
> > > > openhpi.conf.example.
> > > > I'm not so familiar with configure.in and didn't find an
> > > > entry to change the
> > > > openhpi.conf.example, so I will let is at it is. I want to
> > > > have as less
> > > > impact as possible on the openhpi configuration with the
> >
> > new plugin.
> >
> > > > Regards
> > > >    Lars
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, 12. May 2010 22:31, Bishop, Michael (ISB
> > > >
> > > > Linux/Telco) wrote:
> > > > > > This seems reasonable if the simulator behaves like the other
> > > > > > plug-ins.
> > > > > > Does this mean that you can run several instances of the
> > > >
> > > > new simulator
> > > >
> > > > > > with different data files for each, assuming you have
> > > >
> > > > multiple stanzas
> > > >
> > > > > > in the openhpi.conf file?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bryan
> > > > >
> > > > > Good question, Bryan.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lars have you tested your new simulator with multiple
> >
> > stanzas in the
> >
> > > > > openhpi.conf file - with each stanza specifying a different
> > > >
> > > > simulation.data
> > > >
> > > > > file?  Seems like this should work - if your design follows
> > > >
> > > > the normal
> > > >
> > > > > rules for plugins.
> > > > >
> > > > > --michael
> > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > ----------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Openhpi-devel mailing list
> > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openhpi-devel
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > -------------
> > > >
> > > > >---
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Openhpi-devel mailing list
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openhpi-devel
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -------------------------------
> > > > Dipl. Wi.ing.
> > > > Lars Wetzel
> > > > Uttinger Str. 13
> > > > 86938 Schondorf a. Ammersee
> > > >
> > > > Tel.: 0179-2096845
> > > > Mail: [email protected]
> > > >
> > > > USt-IdNr.: DE181396006
> >
> > --
> > -------------------------------
> > Dipl. Wi.ing.
> > Lars Wetzel
> > Uttinger Str. 13
> > 86938 Schondorf a. Ammersee
> >
> > Tel.: 0179-2096845
> > Mail: [email protected]
> >
> > USt-IdNr.: DE181396006
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openhpi-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openhpi-devel

-- 
-------------------------------
Dipl. Wi.ing.
Lars Wetzel
Uttinger Str. 13
86938 Schondorf a. Ammersee

Tel.: 0179-2096845
Mail: [email protected]

USt-IdNr.: DE181396006

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Openhpi-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openhpi-devel

Reply via email to