The phrase "alarm application" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to refer to a software program or tool designed to set alarms or reminders, typically on a mobile device or computer.
Example: "I downloaded a new alarm application to help me wake up on time for my morning meetings."
Alternatives: "alarm software" or "alarm tool".
For example, in the intervehicle hazard alarming applications, when a vehicle detects the hazard triggered by events, it may need to maintain real-time communications to inform other vehicles for example to avoid collision (in case of bad weather: smog, snow, etc).
This is smart: a new alarm clock application for the iPhone and Android wakes you earlier if it snowed last night.
Note that besides receiving traps (alarms) the application can at any time check the state of any monitored process by querying the corresponding MIB object.
When external storage is unmounted (in the ways described above), alarm notifications for applications installed on external storage are cancelled and it is up to the application to reschedule them the next time it runs.
The use of auditory icons in particular should be given serious consideration as potential alarms for this application.
This extra work beforehand can save valuable time and resources investigating "false alarms" after the application of quantitative methods.
It is not clear how the bacteria solved the supposed problem, but their success in doing so raised alarms that widespread application of synthesized RAMPs could lead to bacteria also evolving around an important component of the human immune system (Bell and Gouyon 2003).
Some applications — the alarm, maps, calculator, etc — are just that: applications, with whatever single purpose their name implies.
The EPICS solution provides alarm handling through an application, which notifies the user when information is stored in a distributed database.
The application of alarm pheromone resulted in a significant lower proportion of adult aphids found on the plant at the end of the experiment (58.09±5.50%) compared to the control (66.90±4.59%, t108 = 3.331, p<0.01, Fig. 1B).
