> -----Original Message----- > From: Lawrence, Scott (BL60:9D30) > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:30 PM > To: Beeton, Carolyn (CAR:9D60) > Cc: Spitzer, Andy (BL60:9D30); [email protected] > Subject: RE: [sipX-dev] SUPERVISOR_HOST not defined in > sipxsupervisor-config > > > The other problem I just remembered is that there is no > process definition for sipXsupervisor itself, and so there is > no resource definition for sipxsupervisor-config, so it can't > be replicated. I can think of two ways to address that one: > > 1. Have sipXsupervisor internally create the requisite file > resource definition for sipxsupervisor-config without actually > creating a process definition for it to be in. > 2. Create the sipxsupervisor-process.xml process definition, but > have sipXsupervisor recognize its own definition so that it > doesn't try to manage itself. > > Opinions? > > >
I like option 2 better. I think right now we insist on having a "start" and "stop" command, but what if we loosened that up? The sipxsupervisor-process.xml could declare the files it needs (including alarm ones) but not have a "start" or "stop". It could still have "configtest" so that that could be requested... _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
