On May 20, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree 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.
the GUI can continue to set things the same way it does now, but internally we would handle both 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.
actually the first option is less intrusive (in fact its almost done)
looking in a different place for the meta options is far easier than searching for two different names throughout the code.
-- Andrew Beekhof
"Would the last person to leave please turn out the enlightenment?" - TISM
|
_______________________________________________________
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/
