Re: [Hawkular-dev] availability and metric endpoints

On Mar 20, 2015, at 12:47 PM, John Sanda <jsanda(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On Mar 20, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Lukas Krejci <lkrejci(a)redhat.com <mailto:lkrejci@redhat.com>> wrote: > > On Friday, March 20, 2015 09:03:19 mike thompson wrote: >>> On 20 Mar 2015, at 08:19, Lukas Krejci <lkrejci(a)redhat.com <mailto:lkrejci@redhat.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I think the "metrics" should actually be dropped instead of "numeric”. >> >> The only thing about ‘numeric’ is that it is not very specific. Numeric just >> means number — every metric is a number so its really not adding anything. >> Even availability data is numeric. > > Isn't metrics going to store "events" eventually, too? Those would be textual, > wouldn't they? > > Also, IMHO, even config could be stored in metrics. Even though that is a bit > of a stretch, configuration is after all a time series of structured data... > > You're right that at the moment numeric doesn't add much information. So maybe > instead of that, the type would specify what should be done with the metric? > > Something along the lines of dropwizard-metrics' distinction between a meter, > counter, gauge, histogram, etc? > > So like: > > http://asdf.com/hawkular/metrics/tenant1/histogram/{id} <http://asdf.com/hawkular/metrics/tenant1/histogram/{id}> > http://asdf.com/hawkular/metrics/tenant1/counter/{id} > My aggregate metrics design doc[1] talks about formally introducing gauges and counters. The question I have about endpoints like this is what about pushing a batch of metrics? Do we need to make a separate request for each type? That seems cumbersome and inefficient. [1] http://bit.ly/1BAfF8d <http://bit.ly/1BAfF8d>