[evla-sw-discuss] severity of alerts

[Bryan Butler]

well, yes, i agree.  but right now, there is just one layer/subsystem - 
Checker.  eventually, for the antenna MIBs, there should be the antenna 
server, which can serve as this.  but for now, what we have is: 
MIB->Checker - nothing in between which *can* perform that interpretive 
function.

i agree that this is short term.  eventually it gets pushed down to 
different subsystems (all those which emit alerts).

	-bryan


On 7/21/05 12:54, Rich Moeser wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>> Will this be in "Checker" ?
>>
>>
>>
>> yes, in my mind.  whether it is a separate "piece" (or program out in 
>> front) of Checker is TBD (by rich, i guess, since he's implementing 
>> all of this).  Checker is where errors are reported, so it might as 
>> well be where the heirarchy is implemented.
> 
> 
> The hierarchy should be implemented, not at Checker, but at the
> different layers of the hierarchy. Why should Checker contain knowledge
> for all antenna objects and subsystems? That's how the old VLA Checker
> program works. It's the subsystems that should know if and when
> something is wrong and they should report it themselves.
> 
> I'd say we can use this approach as a short term solution but it is
> likely a mistake for the long term.
> 
> --Rich
> 
> _______________________________________________
> evla-sw-discuss mailing list
> evla-sw-discuss at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evla-sw-discuss