On 2011-06-16 09:03, Lars Ellenberg wrote: > With the current "unique=true/false", you cannot express that.
Thanks. You learn something every day. :) > Depending on what we chose the meaning to be, > parameters marked "unique=true" would be required to > either be all _independently_ unique, > or be unique as a tuple. > > If we want to be able to express both, we need a different markup. > > Of course, we can move the markup out of the parameter description, > into an additional markup, that spells them out, > like <unique params="foo,bar" /><unique params="bla" />. > > But using unique=0 as the current non-unique meaning, then > unique=<small-integer-or-even-named-label-who-cares>, would > name the scope for this uniqueness requirement, > where parameters marked with the same such label > would form a unique tuple. > Enables us to mark multiple tuples, and individual parameters, > at the same time. > > Question is: do we really want or need that. That is a discussion for the updated OCF RA spec discussion, really. And the driver of that discussion is currently submerged. :) Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________________ 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/
