On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Rasto Levrinc <rasto.levr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: >>> >>> On 05/12/2012, at 9:05 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.com> wrote: >>> >>>> For what it is worth, I'd agree with this; the fact that the most common >>>> constraints are order *AND* colocation and we don't have a >>>> (link|chain|join) statement that adequately provides that has been >>>> annoying me for a while. ;-) I massively appreciate that we do have the >>>> separate dimensions, and people use that - but still, the combination of >>>> both is extremely common. >>> >>> Agreed. I'm still torn whether this is a GUI/shell job or something we >>> need to add to the underlying xml. >> >> In my head it's always been that kind of (join|whatever) statement with order >> and/or colocation as attributes, that can be optionally turned off. LCMC >> presents it this way, but it's lot of pain, especially the resource sets are >> tricky. > > So is that a vote for "too hard, do it in the XML" ?
That's right, but my vote is no, because I already have it and adding "join" to the mix would make it even trickier (for me). Would that be something like: <rsc_join ordered="true/false" collocated="true/false" id="join-1" first="A" then="B" /> instead of order and colocation? Or the "join" would come as third possibility along with "order" and "colocation"? Rasto _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
