Subject: RE: Use of alarmListName

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:59:14 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

> Subject: RE: Use of alarmListName
> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:28:44 +0300
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
> To: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
...
> I am not sure what you are asking here. The object that is being
> used for the mapping is alarmModelNotificationId. What is not complete?
...

I think the concern is this:

  - notification arrives
  - the implementation searches the alarmModelTable 
    to find any entries where alarmModelNotificationId matches
    the notification that arrived
  - from each of these entries, we extract the tuple
    <alarmListName, alarmModelIndex> and alarmModelState
  - we now search the alarmActiveTable, looking for any
    active alarms matching <alarmListName, alarmModelIndex> so
    we can apply the new alarmModelState to them.  There's just
    one problem.  We should only apply this to ones with the
    "right" alarmActiveResourceId. This is the part of the
    mapping process that's not complete.

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:09:42 -0700

HI,

Randy summarized the process below, when notifications are used to
raise and clear alarms. But, my interpretation of the I-D is that
two other mechanisms can also be used to raise and clear alarms.
If this interpretation is correct, then for them, would also like
to see the logic similar to what Randy has written below.

>    mapping process that's not complete.

Regards,
/david t. perkins