On Thu, 2019-09-05 at 09:31 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote: > > > > Tomas Jelinek <tojel...@redhat.com> schrieb am 05.09.2019 um > > > > 09:22 in > > Nachricht > <651630f8-b871-e4c1-68d8-e6a42dd29...@redhat.com>: > > Dne 03. 09. 19 v 11:27 Ulrich Windl napsal(a): > > > Hi! > > > > > > Reading the RA API metadata specification, there is a "default" > > > attribute > > > > for "parameter". > > > I wonder what the effect of specifying a default is: Is it > > > purely > > > > documentation (and the RA has to take care it uses the same default > > value as > > in the metadata), or will the configuration tools actually use that > > value if > > the user did not specify a parameter value? > > > > Pcs doesn't use the default values. If you don't specify a value > > for an > > option, pcs simply doesn't put that option into the CIB leaving it > > to > > the RA to figure out a default value. This has a benefit of always > > following the default even if it changes. There is no plan to > > change the > > behavior. > > I see. However changing a default value (that way) can cause > unexpected > surprises at the user's end. > When copying the default to the actual resource configuration at the > time when > it was configured could prevent unexpected surprises (and the values > being used > are somewhat "documented") in the configuration. > I agree that it's no longer obvious then whether those default values > were set > explicitly or implicitly, > > > > > Copying default values to the CIB has at least two disadvantages: > > 1) If the default in a RA ever changes, the change would have no > > effect > > ‑ a value in the CIB would still be set to the previous default. > > To > > configure it to follow the defaults, one would have to remove the > > option > > value afterwards or a new option to pcs commands to control the > > behavior > > would have to be added. > > Agreed. > > > 2) When a value is the same as its default it would be unclear if > > the > > intention is to follow the default or the user set a value which is > > the > > same as the default by coincidence. > > Agreed. > > Are there any plans to decorate the DTD or RNG with comments some > day? I think > that would be the perfect place to describe the meanings.
The standard has its own repo: https://github.com/ClusterLabs/OCF-spec The ra/next directory is where we're putting proposed changes (ra- api.rng is the RNG). Once accepted for the upcoming 1.1 standard, the changes are copied to the ra/1.1 directory, and at some point, 1.1 will be officially adopted as the current standard. So, pull requests are welcome :) I have an outstanding PR that unfortunately I had to put on the back burner but should be the last big set of changes for 1.1: https://github.com/ClusterLabs/OCF-spec/pull/21/files > > Regards, > Ulrich -- Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/