On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Chrissie Caulfield ccaul...@redhat.com wrote:
David Teigland wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 02:28:05PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
At the moment, startup and shutdown ordering is controlled by the
plugin's position in an objdb list.
This is particularly
We will address this patch in the next release. I really prefer the
idea of allowing plugins to specify their order as we discussed on irc
rather then relying on objdb ordering which could change with the
effects of plugin load/unloading.
Regards
-steve
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 09:55 +0200, Andrew
At the moment, startup and shutdown ordering is controlled by the
plugin's position in an objdb list.
This is particularly problematic for cluster resource managers which
must be unloaded/stopped first.
The reason for this is that they (or the resources they control) need
access to at
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 02:28:05PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
At the moment, startup and shutdown ordering is controlled by the
plugin's position in an objdb list.
This is particularly problematic for cluster resource managers which
must be unloaded/stopped first.
The reason for this
On Apr 29, 2009, at 8:55 PM, Steven Dake wrote:
Some service engines are missing priorities.
Right, they don't seem to be started by default so I was unsure of
their correct ordering.
Is it possible for service engines to have matching priorities? I'd
like that to be the case.. (ie:
