On 01/25/2018 09:21 PM, Digimer wrote: > On 2018-01-25 01:28 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: >> On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 13:06 -0500, Digimer wrote: >>> On 2018-01-25 11:11 AM, Ken Gaillot wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 20:58 +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:28:03 -0600 >>>>> Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think there's enough sentiment for "promoted"/"started" as >>>>>> the >>>>>> role >>>>>> names, since it most directly reflects how pacemaker uses them. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the resources themselves, how about "binary clones"? >>>>> I'm not sure to understand what your question is about. >>>>> >>>>> If it is related to how the RA are designated between the ones >>>>> able >>>>> to >>>>> promote/demote and the other ones, this does not reflect to me >>>>> the >>>>> resource can >>>>> be either started or promoted. Moreover, I suppose this kind of >>>>> resources are >>>>> not always binary clones. The states might be purely logical. >>>>> >>>>> Multistate sounds the best option to me. Simple. >>>>> >>>>> If you need some more options, I would pick: clustered resource. >>>>> >>>>> We could argue simple clones might be "clustered resource" as >>>>> well, >>>>> but they >>>>> are not supposed to be related to each other as a >>>>> primary/promoted >>>>> resource and >>>>> a secondary/standby resource are. >>>> Zeroing in on this question, which does everyone prefer: >>>> >>>> * "Binary clones" (in the sense of "one of two roles", but not very >>>> obvious) >>>> >>>> * "Stateful clones" (potentially confusing with anonymous vs unique >>>> clones, and all resources have state) >>>> >>>> * "Multistate clones" (less confusing with anonymous vs unique, and >>>> already in current use in documentation, but still all resources >>>> have >>>> multiple possible states) >>>> >>>> * "Promotable clones" (consistent with "promote" theme, but the >>>> word >>>> looks odd, and confusing with whether an individual instance is >>>> eligible to be promoted) >>>> >>>> * "Promotion clones" (also consistent, but sounds odd and not >>>> particularly obvious) >>> I don't want to push my preferences here, but I wanted to suggest >>> that >>> something that sounds a bit on now will sound normal over time. >>> >>> I will point out, though, that spell check doesn't complain about >>> 'Binary' and 'Promotion'. >>> >>> If I can throw another suggestion in (without offering preference for >>> it >>> myself), 'dual-state clones'? The reasoning is that, though three >>> words >>> instead of two, spell-check likes it, it sounds OK on day one (from a >>> language perspective) and it reflects that the clone has only one of >>> two >>> states. >> Or "dual-role". >> >> Binary/dual/multi all have the issue that all resources have multiple >> states (stopped, started, etc.). Not a deal-breaker, but a factor to >> consider. >> >> What we're trying to represent is: clone resources that have an >> additional possible role that pacemaker manages via the promote/demote >> actions. >> >> I go back and forth between options. "Multistate" would be OK, >> especially since it's already used in some places. "Promotable" is >> probably most accurate. > If the thing only has two states; "dual-role" is perfect. If the thing > can have 3+ states, "multistate" is perfect. > > "Promotable" is certainly accurate, but I have a (very mild) concern > about how easily it is understood by non-native English speakers. > Perhaps someone who speaks English as a second language could chime in > on that? I would probably fall under this category and "Promotable" makes makes sense to me. But unfortunately I'm probably already tainted by long-time-exposure to pacemaker ;-)
Regards, Klaus > > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
