Jan Pokorný <jpoko...@redhat.com> writes: > > Wanted to add a comment on IPaddr vs. IPaddr2 (which, as mentioned, > boils down to ifconfig vs. iproute2) situation being used for > comparison -- this is substantially a different story, as iproute2 > (and in turn, IPaddr2) is Linux-only, while the whole stack is more > or less deployable on various *nixes so having two agents in parallel, > one portable but with some deficiences + one targeted and more capable > makes a damn good sense. Cannot claim the same here.
While there may be good reason from an implementation standpoint for having two agents, that doesn't mean that it makes sense from a user perspective. It's just not particularly beautiful or clear to configure IP addresses using "IPaddr2". The preferred solution from a user perspective would certainly have been to have a single interface to IP addresses which uses whatever means are available on the current platform. In the same way, a user wanting to configure LVM would encounter a variety of agents named "lvm", "lvm2", "lvm-ng", "lvm-maybe" and would most likely end up digging through mailing list posts, reference manuals and XML metadata to maybe figure out which one is a) up to date and b) appropriate for the current platform - since even though there is probably a clear explanation for which one to use somewhere, there is no way for a new user to know where to find that explanation. At least, that's my opinion, clearly opinions differ on this matter ;) Cheers, Kristoffer > > -- > Jan (Poki) > _______________________________________________ > Developers mailing list > Developers@clusterlabs.org > http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers -- // Kristoffer Grönlund // kgronl...@suse.com _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list Developers@clusterlabs.org http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
