On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 09:58:17AM +0100, Sofer Athlan-Guyot wrote: > > Can I change the interface of pcmk_resource? > > > > You have pcmk_constraint but I have pcmk_location/colocation/order > > separately. I can merge then into a single resource like you did > > or I can keep them separated. Or I can make both. Actually they are > > different enough to be separated. > > Yes, I think that you've got it right, and separating the resource seems > to be cleaner.
Agreed. The resources have fairly different semantics that keeping them separate makes more sense. E.g. the following pattern cannot be expressed cleanly today with the openstack puppet-pacemaker module (at least a couple of months ago, haven't looked recently): pcs constraint location foores rule resource-discovery=exclusive score=0 nodetag eq foonode Not sure if the above would work with the fuel module. > > Will I have to develop 'pcs' style provider for every resource? Do we > > really need them? > > 'pcs' command is the way to go on rhel platform. It's the interface of > choice to the pacemaker interface. So, I would say yes. I can help > here. Also note that pcs did make it to debian unstable a few months ago, so in the mid-long term, this interface will be relevant for Debian-derived distros as well. cheers, Michele -- Michele Baldessari <mich...@acksyn.org> C2A5 9DA3 9961 4FFB E01B D0BC DDD4 DCCB 7515 5C6D __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
