Re: [Pvmanager-devel] alarm

[Marty K. <mrk...@co...>]

  On 09/02/2010 10:06 AM, Ralph Lange wrote:
> On 02.09.2010 05:56, Marty Kraimer wrote:
>> [...]
>> But for many devices it may not be useful of if a site has only one 
>> or two devices of a particular type may not be  worthwhile configuring.
>> Perhaps this is better handled via an additional structure field 
>> besides alarm perhaps deviceStatus. A site could have template 
>> structures for each of the devices they want to configure.
>> A record instance of the device would have a field like:
>>
>> <structure name = "deviceStatus" extends = "deviceXYZ" />
>>
>> [...]
>
> I think we should figure out what we want first (spec), and have a 
> general idea about how we want it (design), before thinking about 
> implementation.
>
Since I did not describe what structure deviceStatus contains, there is 
no specification. I only suggested that deviceStatus should not be part 
of alarm.

> I would say that ease of implementation is a valid argument when 
> finalizing a design, but should not be taken into account earlier.
>

If the requirements are to apply to many different types of client and 
many different types of servers than ease of implementation should be 
thought about early.

Marty