On 2006-05-20T14:49:43, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Besides, you still have to look in two places,
> no i dont
Enlighten me. We must be misunderstanding eachother. Time for a step
back ;-)
So, my proposal 1 was that in 20:20 hindsight, we'd not have polluted
the regular instance_attributes namespace, but create a special
meta_attributes element (and thus namespace) within. And also provide
them to the RAs in a different namespace, not the reskeys.
You say this is easily implemented, and that you'd simply handle both.
So everyone could continue to set things like they do now.
My proposal 2 was that we just prefix all of them with crm_, and to have
an option to turn of the "compatibility" aliases at the admins
discretion.
You say this is more work for you than proposal 1. And here's where I
don't follow. To you, I'd think they are both the same. If you have to
look for two names or in two places, how is that a difference?
In either case, everyone else can pretend you never made the change
until they want to switch over to the new scheme.
The changes required from the various components (GUI, RA, scripts) for
proposal 2 is simpler - they'd have to simply prefix everything affected
with crm_. In case of proposal 1, the metadata would need to identify
such, well, meta-attributes differently than it does now, the GUI would
need to handle an additional element and so on.
Must be missing something. Sorry about that. But, if I explained my
confusion sufficiently enough, what _did_ I miss? You replies are too
terse so far for me to get it. ;-)
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/
