On 2010-10-10T17:37:18, Andrew Beekhof <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [1] Note that the XML syntax has no "direction" for colocation
> >> constraints without sets.
> > Well, it does, just coded as different attributes. Or did I
> > misunderstand?
> What I meant was that the order in which rsc and with-rsc occur in the
> XML does not affect the result.
> And that the names were (the second time) chosen to so that the
> meaning was unambiguous.
>
> I think in this case, we stripped off a little too much of the xml
> scaffolding when creating the shell syntax equivalent.
True. But we can at least make it consistent for resource sets.
And _eventually_, I think we can make the switch here too.
For users, they "a b c d" sequence for placement implies (without
further hints) that "a" is placed before "b", etc.
Hey - an idea. Basically, the only thing here is that the order is
reversed. Could we introduce a shell option that would define in which
order ("legacy" or "consistent" ;-) this sort happens?
For the current shell, of course we'd have to stick to "legacy" as the
default, but we could announce that, come 1.2 (or SPn+1), we'll switch
the default?
(Note that this is something that should also be visible in "crm
configure show", as otherwise the save/load cycle would be affected.
But, I think, that'd be quite trivial if that output included a "options
collo_order=() ..." thing that affected parsing, but wasn't written to
the CIB proper of course; similar to how editors embed indentation
settings.)
Or would that be unbearable?
Just food for thought -
Regards,
Lars
--
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
