Re: [Linux-ha-dev] Re: [Linux-ha-cvs] Linux-HA CVS: crm by andrew from

[Andrew Beekhof]

On May 20, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: On 2006-05-20T14:49:43, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Besides, you still have to look in two places, no i dont Enlighten me. We must be misunderstanding eachother. Time for a step back ;-) So, my proposal 1 was that in 20:20 hindsight, we'd not have polluted the regular instance_attributes namespace, but create a special meta_attributes element (and thus namespace) within. And also provide them to the RAs in a different namespace, not the reskeys. well i dont think the lrm would support a whole new namespace, so i was settling for a sub-namespace. eg. OCF_RESKEY_crm-meta- otherwise though i think we're talking about the same thing You say this is easily implemented, and that you'd simply handle both. So everyone could continue to set things like they do now. My proposal 2 was that we just prefix all of them with crm_, and to have an option to turn of the "compatibility" aliases at the admins discretion. i think you mean turn off... because we'd have to default to on for backwards compatibility You say this is more work for you than proposal 1. And here's where I don't follow. To you, I'd think they are both the same. If you have to look for two names or in two places, how is that a difference? Prop 1:  I set up a "meta" hashtable and populate it with meta_attributes (and for backwards compatibility copy in any unset attributes from the regular hashtable). From then on i just look up the name at the meta hashtable. Prop 2: every time i need to look up X  i need to look for crm-meta-X and if thats not set, then fall back to X. Prop 1 involves less lookups, less stuffing around with string manipulations and lets the PE do pick up a bunch more things automatically (like the notify field which triggered all this). In either case, everyone else can pretend you never made the change until they want to switch over to the new scheme. in (my implementation of) prop 1, there'd be no switch... they'd just start using meta_attributes sets. The changes required from the various components (GUI, RA, scripts) for proposal 2 is simpler - they'd have to simply prefix everything affected with crm_. In case of proposal 1, the metadata would need to identify such, well, meta-attributes differently than it does now, the GUI would need to handle an additional element and so on. but arent we talking about options that are for the PE not the RA? clone instance, notify, colocated... those things arent RA parameters so why would they need to change/be added in the RA's metadata? Must be missing something. Sorry about that. But, if I explained my confusion sufficiently enough, what _did_ I miss? You replies are too terse so far for me to get it. ;-) apologies for coming across as terse, that was not my intent. "short and to the point because its saturday" yes, but not "terse". i even used smiley faces :) -- Andrew Beekhof "Would the last person to leave please turn out the enlightenment?" - TISM

_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/