On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2010-10-08T08:27:45, Andrew Beekhof <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd be in favor of the join construct above (although I'd probably >> call it "depends"), > > Yes, one of the hardest problem in all of computer science is naming > things ;-) > >> but it doesn't address the original problem that >> the shell syntax for colocation constraints switches direction when >> you add a third element[1]. > > Yes, that too should be fixed.
Another idea, instead of colocation+brackets, add colocation_set and use whatever new semantics you prefer. > > I'm just voicing that the whole notion of "ordered" collocation gives me > the creeps, and that I'd want to abstract this differently. The ordered colocation doesn't go away though, you're just piggy backing of ordering somewhere else. > > Similarly, we could do away with groups now - the shell could have that > object, yes, but what else is it than a straightforward resource set > that wraps around the primitives? (Just like the group object, just in a > different section.) [1] > > > Regards, > Lars > > [1] Bonus points if you can figure out how to handle cloned groups then > ;-) Now that we've finally got this sort of thing working nicely and you want to rewrite it? Don't make me hurt you :-) > > -- > Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc. > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) > "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-HA mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems > _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
