On 08/22/2012 10:19 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
I've started a branch for sending UUID instead of hostname
This necessitates change to the XDR packet format, but it is backwards
compatible
Nonetheless, it is not desirable to change the XDR format regularly, so
it would be good to know if
On 22/08/12 16:55, Chris Burroughs wrote:
On 08/22/2012 10:19 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
I've started a branch for sending UUID instead of hostname
This necessitates change to the XDR packet format, but it is backwards
compatible
Nonetheless, it is not desirable to change the XDR format
Putting a UUID in a field called 'HOST' seems backwards-incompatible to me.
You're changing the meaning of the HOST field, even if the data type remains
the same.
I'd favor reserving 'HOST' for a hostname, and adding a 'UUID' field to the XML
for UUIDs.
On Aug 22, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Daniel
On 22/08/12 18:40, Alex Dean wrote:
Putting a UUID in a field called 'HOST' seems backwards-incompatible to me.
You're changing the meaning of the HOST field, even if the data type remains
the same.
Just to clarify, this is the way it works on the branch: that doesn't
mean it is the best way
On 22/08/12 20:15, Jochen Hein wrote:
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au writes:
- RRD files are created using the UUID as a directory name
If people have third party scripts that depend on HOST/@NAME being
resolvable, then they could run into trouble, but see my next comment
We
