On 2006-06-28T09:18:36, Huang Zhen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You made several mistakes here, I would like to point out them.
>
> MISTAKE 1 : Empty group is invalid configuration
> Current crm-1.0.dtd shows :
> <!ELEMENT group (meta_attributes*, instance_attributes*, primitive*)>
> So it's your code wrong instead of GUI.
Uhm. Now you ain't be helpful either. The configurations the GUI created
_were_ illegal up to the point where we changed the DTD and the
code to match.
> MISTAKE 2 : Empty group is need by GUI.
> No, it's easy to remove the function of create empty group in GUI.
> What GUI need do is just remove the item in the type list in new item
> window.
> So why we insist that we should have empty group?
> The answer is clear, our users need it.
> Even expert like alanr thinks that an empty group should be there reasonbly.
> And, lars also agrees with this.
Please don't misrepresent me. I don't agree with either Alan _or_ Andrew
;-)
I think that
- empty groups are harmless, and if we must have them, I have given up
complaining;
- empty groups are _meaningless_, so the GUI shouldn't create them.
(Meaningless configuration is redundant.)
So, while I would prefer a better workflow in the GUI which didn't
require the user to create empty complex objects (ie, constructing at
least the object as one, or guiding the user through the workflow of
populating it with at least what he already knows, which certainly will
be at least _one_ resource, why else would he create a group? The GUI
certainly sometimes confuses me greatly there), it isn't me writing the
GUI, so there's no point in resisting a harmless change for too long.
Do note though that this causes rather needless churn in the cluster -
every single change not only causes the inevitable CIB updates to be
broadcast, but triggers a rerun of the PE/TE cycle. That is indeed
wasteful.
One way around it would be to make the changes in one go; another would
be to flag the CIB updates of the GUI as "don't start the PE yet" (until
either the admin triggers the PE explicitly or some other event in the
cluster causes a transition).
> MISTAKE 3 : Empty containers are meanless.
Well, they are meaningless in the sense of not having any effect on the
cluster, that is certainly true. (Which is also why they are harmless.)
>From the point of view as a placeholder during configuration, they are
of course not entirely meaningless, that I'll concede.
I also think that this topic has been beaten to death by everyone and
needs to be given a rest for a couple of weeks.
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée
--
High Availability & Clustering
SUSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
