On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: > > On 05/12/2012, at 9:05 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.com> wrote: > >> For what it is worth, I'd agree with this; the fact that the most common >> constraints are order *AND* colocation and we don't have a >> (link|chain|join) statement that adequately provides that has been >> annoying me for a while. ;-) I massively appreciate that we do have the >> separate dimensions, and people use that - but still, the combination of >> both is extremely common. > > Agreed. I'm still torn whether this is a GUI/shell job or something we > need to add to the underlying xml.
In my head it's always been that kind of (join|whatever) statement with order and/or colocation as attributes, that can be optionally turned off. LCMC presents it this way, but it's lot of pain, especially the resource sets are tricky. > >> >> The independent order + colocation statements do allow for that though; >> and in theory, a frontend *could* detect that there's both "A first, >> then B" and "B where A is" with the same priority and present it merged >> as: >> >> join id-494 inf: A B That was the first thing I did :) Rasto _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
