New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

The fate of check-process.sh #1

Closed
mattyjones opened this Issue Jan 30, 2015 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@mattyjones
Member

mattyjones commented Jan 30, 2015

Should check-process.sh be written to Ruby, dumped into an 'other lang' gem, or dropped altogether?

I vote to drop it as it is functionally identical to other process check commands and checks written in Ruby should be favored.

@rmc3

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rmc3

rmc3 Apr 3, 2015

Contributor

@mattyjones IMO, it should be dropped. The Ruby check is more feature rich, and there's no compelling argument I have seen for having checks written in shell, particularly when they duplicate the functionality of native Ruby checks.

An aside, at some point I do want to rewrite check-process.rb to use sys-proctable to allow it to be more cross-platform.

Contributor

rmc3 commented Apr 3, 2015

@mattyjones IMO, it should be dropped. The Ruby check is more feature rich, and there's no compelling argument I have seen for having checks written in shell, particularly when they duplicate the functionality of native Ruby checks.

An aside, at some point I do want to rewrite check-process.rb to use sys-proctable to allow it to be more cross-platform.

@mattyjones

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mattyjones

mattyjones Apr 3, 2015

Member

@rmc3 I agree on the sys-proctable idea as well. I am rewriting the disk and raid checks to use sys-filesystem myself.

Member

mattyjones commented Apr 3, 2015

@rmc3 I agree on the sys-proctable idea as well. I am rewriting the disk and raid checks to use sys-filesystem myself.

@rmc3

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rmc3

rmc3 Apr 3, 2015

Contributor

With the merge of #7, this is resolved.

Contributor

rmc3 commented Apr 3, 2015

With the merge of #7, this is resolved.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment