On 2018-01-25 01:28 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 13:06 -0500, Digimer wrote: >> On 2018-01-25 11:11 AM, Ken Gaillot wrote: >>> On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 20:58 +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais >>> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:28:03 -0600 >>>> Ken Gaillot <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think there's enough sentiment for "promoted"/"started" as >>>>> the >>>>> role >>>>> names, since it most directly reflects how pacemaker uses them. >>>>> >>>>> For the resources themselves, how about "binary clones"? >>>> >>>> I'm not sure to understand what your question is about. >>>> >>>> If it is related to how the RA are designated between the ones >>>> able >>>> to >>>> promote/demote and the other ones, this does not reflect to me >>>> the >>>> resource can >>>> be either started or promoted. Moreover, I suppose this kind of >>>> resources are >>>> not always binary clones. The states might be purely logical. >>>> >>>> Multistate sounds the best option to me. Simple. >>>> >>>> If you need some more options, I would pick: clustered resource. >>>> >>>> We could argue simple clones might be "clustered resource" as >>>> well, >>>> but they >>>> are not supposed to be related to each other as a >>>> primary/promoted >>>> resource and >>>> a secondary/standby resource are. >>> >>> Zeroing in on this question, which does everyone prefer: >>> >>> * "Binary clones" (in the sense of "one of two roles", but not very >>> obvious) >>> >>> * "Stateful clones" (potentially confusing with anonymous vs unique >>> clones, and all resources have state) >>> >>> * "Multistate clones" (less confusing with anonymous vs unique, and >>> already in current use in documentation, but still all resources >>> have >>> multiple possible states) >>> >>> * "Promotable clones" (consistent with "promote" theme, but the >>> word >>> looks odd, and confusing with whether an individual instance is >>> eligible to be promoted) >>> >>> * "Promotion clones" (also consistent, but sounds odd and not >>> particularly obvious) >> >> I don't want to push my preferences here, but I wanted to suggest >> that >> something that sounds a bit on now will sound normal over time. >> >> I will point out, though, that spell check doesn't complain about >> 'Binary' and 'Promotion'. >> >> If I can throw another suggestion in (without offering preference for >> it >> myself), 'dual-state clones'? The reasoning is that, though three >> words >> instead of two, spell-check likes it, it sounds OK on day one (from a >> language perspective) and it reflects that the clone has only one of >> two >> states. > > Or "dual-role". > > Binary/dual/multi all have the issue that all resources have multiple > states (stopped, started, etc.). Not a deal-breaker, but a factor to > consider. > > What we're trying to represent is: clone resources that have an > additional possible role that pacemaker manages via the promote/demote > actions. > > I go back and forth between options. "Multistate" would be OK, > especially since it's already used in some places. "Promotable" is > probably most accurate.
If the thing only has two states; "dual-role" is perfect. If the thing can have 3+ states, "multistate" is perfect. "Promotable" is certainly accurate, but I have a (very mild) concern about how easily it is understood by non-native English speakers. Perhaps someone who speaks English as a second language could chime in on that? -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.com/w/ "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." - Stephen Jay Gould _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: [email protected] http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
