> > -> MULTIUPDATE > > <- 0 Go ahead. Terminate with '.' on its own line (is this > > necesary?) > > -> x.rrd 1:2 > > -> y.rrd 2:3 > > -> . > > <- 2 results > > <- x.rrd ?? > > <- y.rrd ?? > > > > A few questions: > > > > ? Should we do without the initial "0 Go ahead"? > > Maybe get inspiration from SMTP ?
That's what I did :) > I think a termination command makes sense from a 'language' design > point of view, since otherwhise the rrdtool update lines become > commands in their own right. I think we only need a terminator on multi-line commands from the client. > > ? how do we match up updates/responses? > > - if using a separate key, how do we separate from the filename? > > - what if the user doesn't care about response? (empty key?) > > I would only send back complaints, input linenumber followed by the > error. The client can then make sense of it since it can keep track > of the stuff it sent ... Good idea... simple. > this brings up the question of how to react on an error. Will the > deamon ignore further updates to the same rrd but continue > processing updates to other rrds, or will it abort completely ? On any permanent error (i.e. file doesn't exist) it won't matter. Statement-specific errors (i.e. bad command) will just be ignored. RRD-specific errors (i.e. backward timestamp)... we don't do any validation today, so we'll have to figure that out first. -- kevin brintnall =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ _______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
