On 2010-10-08T08:27:45, Andrew Beekhof <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd be in favor of the join construct above (although I'd probably
> call it "depends"),
Yes, one of the hardest problem in all of computer science is naming
things ;-)
> but it doesn't address the original problem that
> the shell syntax for colocation constraints switches direction when
> you add a third element[1].
Yes, that too should be fixed.
I'm just voicing that the whole notion of "ordered" collocation gives me
the creeps, and that I'd want to abstract this differently.
Similarly, we could do away with groups now - the shell could have that
object, yes, but what else is it than a straightforward resource set
that wraps around the primitives? (Just like the group object, just in a
different section.) [1]
Regards,
Lars
[1] Bonus points if you can figure out how to handle cloned groups then
;-)
--
Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc.
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
