RE: [SA-list] New check position

[Clough, Bruce]

Title: Message

I use each campus as a different group. During the checking I might have a T-1 circuit originate in campus A on router A and terminate in campus B on router B. I would want to have the T-1 circuit dependent on router A being up, and I would also like to have router B dependent on the T-1 being up. However, router B is in a different group than the T-1 circuit and when you make the dependency router B moves to group A, when I really want the dependancy but ALSO want router B to be in group B.

 

--Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: Dirk Bulinckx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 12:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SA-list] New check position

Now I understand what you're saying.

Just not sure to understand the reasons of it.  If you would be at level 4 and there is no level 3, you can as well be at level 3 and when the new level 3 is entered, make the "old" level 3 depend on it and become a level 4.

 

dirk.

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Rosiak, John
Sent: Sun Mar 30 6:35 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: FW: [SA-list] New check position

 

 

Ok, Dirk, last shot at this before we file it away....

 

If I had a level (sub tree) that I could enter into a new or updated  host check, I would be able to pre-determine where in the pecking order I would be ( even within the group, which I have the ability to define). That position would be relevant to the group I am in, obviously. If you look at standard dependencies,my entry level 4 would be seen as follows:

 

Current Group

aa   

    ab

        ac

            ad  (level 3)

                ae (level 4)

 

If I then moved entry ae to another group, I could retain the level 4 status (even if there were no other dependencies above my level (I would then depend on level 0 naturally, since there are no other levels). If level 3 were then created, I would automatically depend on level 3.

 

New Group

aa

    no entry

        no entry

            no entry

                ae  (Level 4)

 

My hair is starting to hurt... I am almost sorry I brought this up. (this is not that BIG A DEAL  :-)  ) Take a couple days and digest it.

 

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Dirk Bulinckx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 2:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SA-list] New check position

Still don't understand what you're trying to say I think.

 

dirk.

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Rosiak, John
Sent: Sat Mar 29 5:47 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [SA-list] New check position

Dirk,

 

I guess where I am going is a form of "absolute positioning within the check itself", so that it can be moved anywhere and maintain its position (right or wrong in the new location).

 

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Dirk Bulinckx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 3:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SA-list] New check position

From what I understand this is possible with SA.

 

 

a   

    aa

        aaa

    ab

        aba

 

b

c

d

e

 

 

drap & drop of e on ab will cause

...

    aa

        aaa

    ab

        aba

        e

 

or am I missing the point?

 

 

dirk.

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Rosiak, John
Sent: Sat Mar 29 4:19 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [SA-list] New check position

Dirk,

 

My initial thought was another field to define a "position" within the tree that could be set so that no matter what the group you are working with, the check would always be at the later level (or maintained).  Now, that may present a problem with other dependencies, but it may be a more flexible way to position some checks.

 

Let me see if I can picture this for you:

 

a1

        a2

                a3

all of the above are standard dependencies.

 

Now:

a1-L1

                        a2-L5 (indicates the ability to insert other checks before this one ( 4 levels deep and in this  example,        dependent   on a3

                                a3-L3 (the ability to quick-edit change the implied dependency)

 

The above now gives:    a1, then a3, then a2    with the ability to throw in a7 with a level of L2, making a2 and a3 dependent ON A7 ???

 

Is this making any sense ????---it sounded good when I said it to myself initially.

 

Keep up the good work....the beta with multi drag and drop looks great---solves my dependency issue very nicely !

 

John

 

 From: Dirk Bulinckx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 3:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SA-list] New check position

Not sure to understand what you mean with it.  Can you explain it a bit more?

 

dirk.