On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 23:30 +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 09:37:39 -0600 > Ken Gaillot <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > > > > All RA > > > must implement the first two states "stopped" and "started". The > > > cases where RA > > > is promotable should then be called..."promotable" I suppose. > > > > > > However, why exactly should we find a terminology for RA > > > implementing > > > the > > > "promote" action? Should we find some new terminology for RA > > > implementing > > > optional actions like "notify" ("notifiable") or "validate-all" > > > ("validatable") > > > action as well? (ok, these are not roles, but I try to explain my > > > point :)) > > > > > > Now the terminology is common using "stopped, started, promoted", > > > should we stop considering "multistate RA" as special cases? We > > > could > > > simply > > > explain RAs are implementing all or a subset of the actions/roles > > > Pacemaker > > > offers and give documentation details related to roles > > > properties, > > > variables > > > and transitions, isn't it? > > > > We will need some way of specifying it in the syntax, and that will > > become its name ... <clone promotable="true"> or whatever. (We > > can't > > simply go by what's in the RA metadata for technical reasons not > > worth > > going into here.) > > That makes me wonder how pcs and crm syntax should evolve as well > from the > user point of view... :/
I'm sure they'll adapt similarly, allowing the old names for backward compatibility. > > > > "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? > > > > > > "Promotable" sounds accurate to me (native french speaker). > > > > That's good to know. I think we have at least narrowed it down to > > "multistate" or "promotable" :-) > > > > Unfortunately the role names are now back in play as well. > > "Promoted" > > and "unpromoted"? > > > > E.g.: > > > > Instead of a single "started" role, a promotable clone resource > > must be > > in one of two roles when active: "promoted" or "unpromoted". > > What about my previous suggestion to use "active" to match either > "Started" or > "Promoted" state? I like it. My only concern is how difficult it might be to work with old configurations. (Pacemaker 2.0 will guarantee rolling upgrades from 1.1.11 and later, and full-stop upgrades from 1.0.0 and later.) In other words, if someone has an older configuration with target- role="Started", we'd want to automatically remap that (via XSLT) to "active", but if it's a newer configuration, we wouldn't want to touch that. It's feasible but confusing, even more so when considering pcs/crm/etc., which would need to figure out the user's intent (the user likely doesn't know which CIB schema version they're using) and map it one way or the other depending on the CIB schema, or upgrade the CIB schema first. Using one-to-one new terms for master and slave would be a lot easier to implement. I think we're at least converging on "promotable" to describe the resources and "promoted" for the master role. For 2.0.0, the only change will likely be the <master> tag and some documentation, so we can proceed on that basis. -- Ken Gaillot <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ 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
