Chris, Basically, I think this spec is NOT a spec for a framework to integrate with SNMP but to just propagate the alerts in cloudstack today to SNMP. So given that, I would like to see that we don't waste our energy on a framework and use already available code like the SNMP log4j appender. Leave the energy for a real implementation. That implementation I believe should be based on event system.
--Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Sears [mailto:chris.x.se...@sungard.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:56 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Discuss] SNMP Alerts support in CloudStack > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Murali Reddy > <murali.re...@citrix.com>wrote: > > > Taking > > dependency on the event framework would mean that this feature will > > require a MOM broker for no additional benefit at least in this context of > > proposal. > > > > Isn't the plan to eventually move many features/services that don't need to > be in the core over to the event framework? If that's true, a message > broker will become a another required support service, just like MySQL is > today. I don't think running a broker will be so onerous that it will scare > users off from using features that depend on it.
