On 26/09/16 15:15 +0100, Adam Spiers wrote: > [snipped] > > To clarify: I am not religiously defending this "wrapper OCF RA" idea > of mine to the death. It certainly sounds like it's not as clean as I > originally thought. But I'm still struggling to see any dealbreaker. > > OTOH, I'm totally open to better ideas. > > For example, could Pacemaker be extended to allow hybrid resources, > where some actions (such as start, stop, status) are handled by (say) > the systemd backend, and other actions (such as monitor) are handled > by (say) the OCF backend? Then we could cleanly rely on dbus for > collaborating with systemd, whilst adding arbitrarily complex > monitoring via OCF RAs.
Yes, I totally forgot about "monitor" action in the original post. It would also likely be usually implemented by the mentioned "systemd+hooks" class, just as the mentioned "pre-start" and "post-stop" equivalents (note that behavior of standard OCF agents could be split so that, say, "start" action is "pre-start" action plus daemon executable invocation, which would make the parts of behavior more reusable, e.g., as systemd hooks, than it's the case nowadays). -- Jan (Poki)
pgpkxQUOI7KCu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
