On 2012-12-06T20:11:41, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote:
> > In my head it's always been that kind of (join|whatever) statement with
> > order
> > and/or colocation as attributes, that can be optionally turned off. LCMC
> > presents it this way, but it's lot of pain, especially the resource sets are
> > tricky.
> So is that a vote for "too hard, do it in the XML" ?
I'd vote for that, at least. Figuring out if two graphs (order and colo)
match to the point where they can be merged is non-trivial to implement,
and it is not something we'd want multiple frontends to have to do, I
think.
Resource sets actually go a long way in this direction already.
(order with a set and sequential=true)
I actually wonder if that may not already solve the issue (wouldn't that
be neat ;-), or if something is still missing.
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
