Simon Talbot Chief Engineer Net Solutions Europe T: 020 3161 6001 F: 020 3161 6011 www.nse.co.uk
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments are private and confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the named addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not read, copy or use the information contained in any way. If you receive this email or any attachments in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and destroy any copy you have of it. We accept no responsibility for any loss or damages whatsoever arising in any way from receipt or use of this e-mail or any attachments. This e-mail is not intended to create legally binding commitments on our behalf, nor do its comments reflect our corporate views or policies. Net Solutions Europe Ltd Registered Office: Baxter House, 48 Church Road, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 8RR Registered in England No. 03203624. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alan Robertson Sent: 16 June 2011 10:53 PM To: High-Availability Linux Development List Subject: Re: [Linux-ha-dev] Uniquness OCF Parameters On 06/16/2011 10:53 PM, Alan Robertson wrote: >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. This would certainly cover most of the permutations I can think of and certainly all the ones in our environment, Simon Simon Talbot Chief Engineer Net Solutions Europe T: 020 3161 6001 F: 020 3161 6011 www.nse.co.uk _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
