[Hawkular-dev] scope of the agent design

[Michael Burman]

Hi,

Not to mention all the integration weight we'll have to carry. Keeping up with the third party software versions and backwards compatibility is going to incur a huge cost in terms of development hours. The same issue we had with building RHQ plugins for every product.

Supporting software where we can send plugins for the third-party to "keep up" is going to be easier for us (assuming we get some users for those - in which case there might be community updates to some of those plugins to keep them working) than building compatible APIs to our core. And in any case, those third-party agents will not provide us the USP we want. 

  - Micke

----- Original Message -----
From: "Heiko W.Rupp" <hrupp at redhat.com>
To: hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:13:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Hawkular-dev] scope of the agent design

On 16 Mar 2015, at 20:58, Lukas Krejci wrote:
> On the "agent side" there are more than plenty of tools that are 
> already in
> use. We should first try to find ways of integrating with these tools 
> and only
> when none of pre-existing stuff implements our usecase (in a good 
> enough way)
> we should look to implement an "agent" of our own.

What if the users does not have any of those tools installed?
Do we tell them "install Ganglia, but not the graphing, only the 
monitoring".
Ah and as this does not cope well with WildFly 94 please install 
collectd on top?

> not some "heavy" agent in the RHQ sense.

Running many of the small tools in parallel also has a cost. Similar
to forking hundreds and thousands of shell commands.
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev