On 06/16/2011 02:51 AM, Lars Ellenberg wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:48:20AM +0200, Florian Haas wrote: >> 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. :) > Sorry that I left off the "As you are well aware of," > introductionary phrase. ;-) > > I just summarized the "problem": > >>> 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. > And made a suggestion how to solve it: > >>> 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. > If we really think it _is_ a problem. If one wanted to, one could say unique=1,3 or unique=1 unique=3
Then parameters which share the same uniqueness list are part of the same uniqueness grouping. Since RAs today normally say unique=1, if one excluded the unique group 0 from being unique, then this could be done in a completely upwards-compatible way for nearly all resources. -- Alan Robertson<al...@unix.sh> "Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William Wilberforce _______________________________________________________ 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/