Yesterday Jake Brutlag wrote: > > > <hint> > > It doesn't seem to be very important to others or else there > > would actually be some traffic on this list ... </> > > I haven't followed this thread that closely, but isn't this debate about > the choice between a less complicated interface (graph command syntax) > and a more flexible interface (that allows complete > control/customization of the graphs)? Now maybe an xml interface could > provide both, but backwards compatibility should be preserved. Maybe > there could be a new function "graphxml" that takes the graph specs as > xml, while the old function continues to act as currently advertised.
now that seems like a sensible idea ... :-) and while doing it we could generalize the code in rrd_graph tobi > > Jake > > Jake Brutlag > Network Analyst > TV Services -- Network Operations > Microsoft MSN > -- ______ __ _ /_ __/_ / / (_) Oetiker, ETZ J97, ETH, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland / // _ \/ _ \/ / phoneto:+41(0)1-632-5286 faxto:+41(0)1-632-1517 /_/ \.__/_.__/_/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://google.com/search?q=tobi -- 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