28.06.2018 21:23, Jan Pokorný пишет: ... > > This initiative is meant to consist of two steps: > > a. modify the documentation to expressly detail said lexical > requirement > - you can read draft of my change as a pull request for pacemaker: > https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/pull/1523/files > (warning: the respective discussion was somewhat heated, > and is not a subject of examination nor of a special interest > here), basically I suggest "x-*" naming, with full recommended > convention being "x-appname_identifier" > > b. add a warning to the logs/standard error output (daemons/CLI) > when not recognized as pacemaker's claimed identifier nor > starting with dedicated prefix(es), possibly referring to > the documentation stanza per a., in a similar way the user > gets notified that no fencing devices were configured > - this would need to be coded > - note that this way, you would get actually warned about > your own typos in the meta-attribute identifiers even > if you are not using any high-level tooling > > This may be the final status quo, or the eventual separation > of the identifiers makes it really easy to perform other schema > upgrade related steps with future major schema version bumps > _safely_. Nobody is immediately forced to anything, although > the above points should make it clear it's prudent to get ready > (e.g. also regarding the custom tooling around that) in respect > to future major pacemaker/schema version bumps and respective > auto-upgrades of the configuration (say it will be declared > it's valid to upgrade to pacemaker 3.0 only from as old pacemaker > as 2.0 -- that's the justification for acting _now_ with preparing > sane grounds slowly). > > * * * > > So now the promised questions; just send a reply where you [x] tick > your selections for the questions below, possibly with some more > commentary on the topic, and preferrably on-list (single of your > choice is enough): > > 1. In your cluster configurations, do you carry meta-attributes > other than those recognized by pacemaker? > > [X] no > > [ ] yes (if so, can you specify whether for said constraints > rules, as a way to permanently attach some kind of > administrative piece of information, whether you > have the whole custom tooling around this, etc.?) > > 2. How do you feel about said meta-attributes' namespace separation > proposal (as summarized in documentation edit per above link)? > > [X] no feelings/not related to my use cases (e.g., haven't used > custom meta-attributes possibility before, no inclination to > use that in the future) > > [ ] too cumbersome, better to live with the risk of the future > clashes now (and with the risk of distant future automatic > upgrade doing accidentally a wrong thing) > > [ ] acceptable, but only as an interim solution > > [ ] acceptable without complaints > > * * * >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Developers mailing list Developers@clusterlabs.org https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
