Makes sense Alex. Will purse SNMP log4j appender and its equivalent for syslog.
Thanks, Ram > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@citrix.com] > Sent: 16 January 2013 06:23 > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: [Discuss] SNMP Alerts support in CloudStack > > 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.
