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/
