On 2006-05-20T12:45:36, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If we'd been smart, we'd have changed "instance_attributes" to not
> >only contain (rule*, attributes), but (rule*, attributes?,
> >meta_attributes?) and also put these not into the OCF_RESKEY_...
> >space in the environment but, say, CRM_PARMS_... or something and
> >avoided this whole mess ;-) 20:20 hindsight is always different.
>
> well would could still do something like this. sounds pretty
> sensible and for backwards compatibility we can populate missing
> meta_attributes from the instance_attributes.
>
> actually this makes a lot of sense to me
I'm reasonably afraid of the havoc this will wreck on the GUI and so far
existing scripts. This is too late for the release.
Which is why I proposed the other, slightly less intrusive option, which
we can simply put in reasonably soon, and then, with more time at our
hands, look at the above.
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée
--
High Availability & Clustering
SUSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
