In the intent of building a protocol which is easy to read as a human why using obscure symbols to denote the metric "type" ? I am talking about <^>,<'> and <+>
I kinda like the statsd approach on this (https://github.com/etsy/statsd), why not using something like this (for the value field): gauge: 32.45|g counter: 129800|c derive: 56|d always having the type would also be nicer as opposite that having gauge considered as default. There is also the option to have the type as a proper field: ESTP:org.example:sys::cpu: 2012-06-02T09:36:45 10 7.2 g The resource name is explained but not present in the fields description for the example (above), is it the part after the "::" in the application name ? Other that these remarks this is starting to look like something I could use :) Ps: I sent you a pull request for a typo On 8 June 2012 08:30, Paul Colomiets <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Pieter, > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > > Paul, > > > > I've made a pull request with a few spelling/grammar fixes. > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > Looks interesting, would be fun to see some running code. > > > > Sure. Will be done shortly. > > -- > Paul > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
