On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:11 +0100, Iustin Pop <ius...@google.com> wrote:
> > > > + let lsock = optLuxi opts
> > > > +
> > > > + when (isNothing lsock) $
> > > > + exitErr "Luxi socket (-L) required to execute jobs."
> > > I haven't checked later patches to see how it looks, but if this is
> > > required, should be make a variant of oLuxiSocket that is enabled by
> > > default? Or will there be cases where you can run this tool without
> > > luxi?
> > Ah. Yes, my initial plan was to give support for running without Luxi.
> > But (see my comments in the cover message) that resulted in somewhat
> > hairy code, so I decided against it. I'll send a 4.5/11 patch on Monday
> > to add such variant of oLuxiSocket if that's ok with you.
> Yep, please do so.
Actually, how would this work? I'm just not sure if you're suggesting:
(a) a variant of the oLuxiSocket that somehow marks itself as required,
i.e. the user _must_ pass it
or
(b) a change in the default options in the harep personality, so that
Luxi is enabled by default.
In the case of (a), I think I'm just missing how to mark an option as
required. In the case of (b) it seems that a non-trivial amount of work
would be needed so that the personalities can export an alternative set
of defaults to Main.hs.
I'm okay with (a) if that can be easily done, but actually what may be
more sensible would be
(c) just use oLuxiSocket as-is (to allow for alternate Luxi socket
locations), but have the code in Harep.hs _default_ itself to using
Path.defaultLuxiSocket.
In (c), `harep` without any options works, but -L can be pass to
specify an alternate location of the socket.
Thoughts?
--
Dato Simó | d...@google.com
Corp Fleet Management / Ganeti SRE (Dublin)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ganeti-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to ganeti-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
