----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Beekhof" <[email protected]>
> To: "General Linux-HA mailing list" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 7:46:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [Linux-HA] Antw: Re: establishing a new resource-agent package
> provider
>
>
> On 30/07/2013, at 4:21 PM, Ulrich Windl <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >>>> David Vossel <[email protected]> schrieb am 30.07.2013 um 01:20 in
> >>>> Nachricht
> > <[email protected]>:
> >
> > [...]
> >>> How does this compare to the Red Hat fence/resource-agent packages? I'm
> >>> very happy to see "heartbeat" and it's inherent confusion go away, so I
> >>> am fundamentally for this. I only question "core" and how it will relate
> >>> to those fence and resource agents.
> >>
> >> "core" would only be related to the ocf standard. I don't think this
> >> should
> >> have any relation to the fence agents.
> > [...]
> >
> > I wonder: "ocf:base:..." or "ocf:standard:..." instaed of "ocf:core:..."
> >
> > My personal associations are a bit like this:
> > core == essential
> > base == basic functions
>
> many are not basic
>
> > standard == somewhat standardized
>
> nor are they a standard (although they do conform to one)... they're just the
> ones that the people upstream ships.
> I like this one the least.
yeah, standard sounds confusing to me. Splitting agents between core and base
is going to be difficult as well. If we did something like that, I'd probably
want to do 'core' and 'extended'... where core supported agents are ones the
community takes ownership of, and extended agents are agents that exist in the
project, but are only maintained by a subset of the community. I don't really
want to do something like this though.
>
> "common" perhaps?
perhaps, but I still prefer 'core' over 'common'
These are the 'core' resource agents that the ocf community supports. Agents
outside of the 'core' provider are supported by different projects and subsets
of the community (like linbit and the drbd agent). To me 'common' refers to
something that is shared... like a library or something. That probably isn't
what we're going for.
-- Vossel
> I don't much care beyond saying that continuing to call them "heartbeat" is a
> continuing source of confusion to people just arriving to our set of
> projects.
> Calling them "heartbeat" made sense originally, but now its an historical
> anachronism. IMHO.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ulrich
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
