On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Rasto Levrinc <rasto.levr...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
So is that a vote for "too hard, do it in the XML" ? > >> >>> >>> 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 _______________________________________________ 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
