[Date Prev]   [Date Next] [Thread Prev]   [Thread Next] [Date Index]   [Thread Index]


     Re: Multiple Dependencies (as requested)

Good point, but it depends on how you use it. We, the network operations
staff, hide devices so that our help desk doesn't see them. Usually it's
because we've verified that the device is still alive even though it's not
answering pings, or it's something that's temporarily down. Obviously we
can't go around and put cookies on everyone's machines.

If you want to see all the devices, just look at the 'error' view instead of
the 'critical' view.

"Jonathan A. Zdziarski" wrote:
> the problem with a 'hidden' field in the database is that it's not the
> place for it...if one person wants to hide a view and another doesn't,
> it automatically makes the field obsolite.  i think the 'hidden'
> information should be kept in either a cookie, /tmp file, or whatever
> type of file a view process initializes to store its variables.
> On Mon, 18
> Oct 1999, Rick Beebe wrote:
> > "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" wrote:
> > >
> > > All involved, please let me know what you think of this below.  I believe
> > > it will be the optimal level of multiple dependency logic for our
> > > application allowing you to form complex AND and OR routines, rather than
> > > just OR routines.
> >
> > One of the things I added to the web interface, that doesn't exist in
> > netconsole, was a status field and a 'hidden' field. I had to use the
> > somewhat kludgy etc/updates file to do that. Since we're talking about a
> > redesign, how about adding those to the database to make it easy to add that
> > functionality to any of the interfaces.


     Rick Beebe                                           (203) 785-4566
     Network Engineering Manager                     FAX: (203) 737-4037
     ITS-Med Technology Operations                Richard.Beebe@yale.edu   
     Yale University School of Medicine                                 
     333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT 06510