On 09/12/2012 05:14 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2012-09-11T15:04:55, Alan Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Depends. Pacemaker may still care about the status of these agents.
>> If it can't start or stop them, what can it do with them?
> The status from these agents may feed into operations on other
> resources that are fully managed.
Understood.
I believe it will care about those other agents - not these. It
shouldn't know about these, AFAIK.
The fact that the other agents might call these is an implementation
detail - not something it should care about directly. Just as the
resource agents should only rely on things that the OCF RA spec says are
provided, consumers of those agents (like pacemaker) shouldn't go past
the spec in terms of expectations from or observations of resource
agents beyond the spec. Or at least that's how it seems to me.
It's still my intent to have the exit codes, argument passing, etc. be
fully compliant with the OCF RA specification. The only exception I
plan on is no start or stop (or reload, etc) actions. They will
implement the meta-data and monitor and validate-all actions. I'm not
sure whether validate-all makes sense for them or not(?). I'll think
about that...
--
Alan Robertson <[email protected]> - @OSSAlanR
"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me claim
from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William Wilberforce
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
