[rrd-developers] Re: rrd comments

[Richard A. Steenbergen]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Laurie.Gellatly at netic.com.au wrote:

> This question has been asked before. The answer from Tobi was, in
> brief, why not put this kind of information into a simple support file
> as it does not directly change any aspect of how the RRD was
> maintained or the data in it accessed. The other side of the argument
> goes : because there is not much data and it is directly related to
> the RRD it would be nice to keep it in the one file. The outcome... do
> you see any of these things in an RRD today? And, of course, you are
> free to make changes to the file layout for your own use.

Well, just because you CAN ghetto-hack around the lack of ability to
describe your data doesn't mean you SHOULD. :) I can see an argument being
made about it breaking compatibility with the existing rrd structs, but
since it appears that has been done already in the devel version, what
better time to add it.

In order to prevent such problems in the future, it might make sense to
lay out the data structs with a Type-Length-Value system which would allow
adding of new data types without breaking compatibility.

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177  (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA  B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)



--
Unsubscribe mailto:rrd-developers-request at list.ee.ethz.ch?subject=unsubscribe
Help        mailto:rrd-developers-request at list.ee.ethz.ch?subject=help
Archive     http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/rrd-developers
WebAdmin    http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/lsg2.cgi