On 2012-11-12T14:52:35, David Vossel <dvos...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Yes, introducing the new order constraint attribute would allow all
> this to be possible without the container object, but all the
> dependencies between the vm and the children would have to be
> generated in the constraint section (order and colocation
> constraints). I'm not sure how I feel about that. It is easier from
> an implementation standpoint, but puts a larger burden on the user.
It's the task of the (G)UI to make this easier, if required. I think.
Nothing stops them from rendering this any way it pleases; while staying
compatible on the backend.
> Perhaps we introduce the order constraint attribute and the new lrmd
> work so remote monitoring will be technically possible (large
> configuration burden though). Then we approach the container object
> as a syntactic shortcut similar to the group object later on if we
> want to.
This is how the slippery slope with groups started ;-) Originally they
were meant to be just a short cut for collocation/order constraints.
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
