Subject: RE: Pairing instances

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:14:00 -0400

hi

Currently it is assumed that the implementer has some
knowledge of the notification being used in the model.
Of course if they are using the provided notifications,
the resource ID is in a well defined spot within the
notification, but can take any value.

I don't know how practical it would be to even try
and provide a standardized mechanism to identify
where in a notification the resource information will
be stored. My feeling is not very.

Perhaps the best solution would be to add some clarifying
text to the document.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 8:56 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Pairing instances

Hi -

> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:39:12 -0700
> To: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: Pairing instances
> In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
...
> The example below is interesting, but I'm talking about something
> really basic. 

Much simpler than your example.  ;-)

The question about how the

...
> code would determine the value of "alarmActiveResourceId" from
> the notifications is not described. 
...

Agreed.  This is a problem.

Summing up, we have similar concerns about the alarmModelTable.
A partial list, paraphrasing (or possibly reading too much
into) your posts:

   1) how does it the implementation figure out where to get
      the value for alarmActiveResourceId?  (The information
      has to be in the notification somewhere, but how does
      the alarmModelTable tell the implementation where to
      look?)

   2) what is the appropriate amount of power for describing
      the "finite state machine" for an alarm?

   3) can a single notification "crank" more than one alarm's
      state machine?  (This is tied to (1))

 ------------------------------------------------------
 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: Ramanathan Kavasseri <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:23:32 -0700

> Perhaps the best solution would be to add some clarifying

Clarifying text in the doc will certainly be good (it
will help towards a consistent implementation). I don't think
a standardized mechanism is needed.

Just my 2 cents,

Ram