Nut upsuser - Jun 2021 - NUT command LOGIN is not a login

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> On 6/26/21 10:26 AM, Roger Price wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2021, Mark Hansen wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2021 5:48 AM, Roger Price wrote:
>>>> Comment: had the command LOGIN been called SETACTIVE, with the 
>>>> upsmon flag ST_LOGIN changed to ST_ACTIVE, and NUMLOGINS
changed to
>>>> NUMACTIVE this mechanism would probably be easier to
understand.?
>>>> LOGOUT might be NOTACTIVE.
>>>>
>>>> ??? Current?? Proposed
>>>> ??? LOGIN???? SETACTIVE
>>>> ??? LOGOUT??? NOTACTIVE
>>>> ??? NUMLOGINS NUMACTIVE
>>>> ??? ST_LOGIN? ST_ACTIVE
>>
>>> What about:
>>> ??? Current??? Proposed
>>> ??? LOGIN????? ATTACH
>>> ??? LOGOUT???? DETACH
>>> ??? NUMLOGINS? NUMATTACHED
>>> ??? ST_LOGIN?? ST_ATTACHED
>>
>> Better.? ATTACH is simpler and clearer than SETACTIVE.? Roger
>
> +1 !
Jim, I would like to suggest this as a change to NUT - not something to be done 
for the next release, but, like some other things in the draft RFC (I-D), as a 
statement of direction for the project.

If the project as a whole can agree on this, I will make the change LOGIN -> 
ATTACH in the I-D with a note saying that current practice is to use LOGIN.  Do 
we need to vote?

Roger

Sounds reasonable to me, and hopefully might be aliased in a
legacy-compatible manner (client asks with new command, if rejected try
old; accept both words on server side) so it could happen in current master.

Note that similar protocol changes e.g. for master vs primary were just
planned as a theoretical construct, but I did not code any PoC (beside
commenting the idea) nor saw any PRs to such effect.

Bite-size contribution that would be a little coding and a lot of testing
(combining new and old binaries as servers and clients) is welcome :)

Jim

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021, 11:00 Roger Price <roger at rogerprice.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> > On 6/26/21 10:26 AM, Roger Price wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Jun 2021, Mark Hansen wrote:
> >>> On 6/24/2021 5:48 AM, Roger Price wrote:
> >>>> Comment: had the command LOGIN been called SETACTIVE, with
the
> >>>> upsmon flag ST_LOGIN changed to ST_ACTIVE, and NUMLOGINS
changed to
> >>>> NUMACTIVE this mechanism would probably be easier to
understand.
> >>>> LOGOUT might be NOTACTIVE.
> >>>>
> >>>>     Current   Proposed
> >>>>     LOGIN     SETACTIVE
> >>>>     LOGOUT    NOTACTIVE
> >>>>     NUMLOGINS NUMACTIVE
> >>>>     ST_LOGIN  ST_ACTIVE
> >>
> >>> What about:
> >>>     Current    Proposed
> >>>     LOGIN      ATTACH
> >>>     LOGOUT     DETACH
> >>>     NUMLOGINS  NUMATTACHED
> >>>     ST_LOGIN   ST_ATTACHED
> >>
> >> Better.  ATTACH is simpler and clearer than SETACTIVE.  Roger
> >
> > +1 !
>
> Jim, I would like to suggest this as a change to NUT - not something to be
> done
> for the next release, but, like some other things in the draft RFC (I-D),
> as a
> statement of direction for the project.
>
> If the project as a whole can agree on this, I will make the change LOGIN
> ->
> ATTACH in the I-D with a note saying that current practice is to use
> LOGIN.  Do
> we need to vote?
>
> Roger_______________________________________________
> Nut-upsuser mailing list
> Nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net
> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsuser/attachments/20210629/b6780986/attachment.htm>