On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 05:49:05PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2010-10-05T18:03:17, Andrew Beekhof <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Anyway, it's too late to change the semantics as
> > > that would change behaviour of the existing clusters.
> > Actually the solution is really quite easy.
> >
> > 1. Make constraints with > 2 elements and no/insufficient brackets
> > produce a warning and require user confirmation.
> > There is certainly precedent for things in the shell becoming warnings
> > that weren't previously.
> >
> > 2. Decide on two types of brackets to use, one for ordered and one for
> > unordered.
>
> Admittedly, I find the whole notion of "ordered" collocation extremely
> annoying, and unclean design. I'd much rather not have the shell support
> that at all.
I don't like the thing either. But how/what should then the
shell support in terms of collocation?
> That collocation is expressed in what amounts to the reverse of the
> "natural" consequence of ordering is a bit confusing, but I'm afraid
> we're stuck with that now.
>
>
> For order + colocation, a rather common combination of constraints, what
> I'd rather have the shell do is detect a match between them and merge
> them in the shell syntax - there's no reason why a shell statement
> _must_ only expand to a single XML element.
Agreed. Though so far all shell constructs have a single element
XML production. What I meant to say is that we'd need a bit of
work for that, and it doesn't look very straightforward to me, at
least not now.
> So:
>
> order foo inf: a b
> colocation bar inf: b a
>
> would be merged to
>
> join foo: inf: a b
>
> in the shell. And then do the same for sets; it's not much more
> difficult, and we'll all be much cleaner off than with trying to
> remember what the heck [] () {} were about. And keep it at one set of
> parenthesis.
>
> (Add an expand command to turn the automated merge of if people want to
> etc etc, but you get the idea.)
Yes, I like the idea and perhaps we already did talk about it a
while ago. I also dislike introducing brackets into the resource
sets syntax, it seems to be an overkill, and I can't justify that
from the UI perspective.
Thanks,
Dejan
> Regards,
> Lars
>
> --
> 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
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
