[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-ha
Subject:    Re: [Linux-HA] Antw: Re:  [crmsh] Question about latest crmsh.
From:       Kristoffer =?utf-8?Q?Gr=C3=B6nlund?= <kgronlund () suse ! com>
Date:       2014-11-28 13:57:21
Message-ID: 878uivv35q.fsf () krigpad ! site
[Download RAW message or body]

Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> writes:

>>>> Kristoffer Grönlund <kgronlund@suse.com> schrieb am 28.11.2014 um 11:06 in
> Nachricht <87bnnrvduf.fsf@krigpad.site>:
>
> [...]
>>> When we used Pacemaker1.0, results seem to be different.
>>> Are these specifications of new crm command?
>>>
>> 
>> Yes, this is the new CLI syntax for crmsh. Where possible, crmsh now
>> tries to avoid adding the double quotation marks.
>
> Like it was in SGML, but then cam XML, and you needed the quotes. Personally
> I'd prefer strings in quotes, numbers without...
>

Well, personally I strongly dislike XML so perhaps that is an influence ;)

>> 
>> 
>>> Q2) When we executed the next command, ocf:heartbeat is not displayed.
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>> [root@snmp1 ~]# crm configure show
>>> (snip)
>>> primitive prmDummy2 Dummy \
>>>         op start interval=0s timeout=300s on-fail=restart \
>>>         op monitor interval=10s timeout=60s on-fail=restart \
>>>         op stop interval=0s timeout=300s on-fail=block
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>> When we used Pacemaker1.0, results seem to be different.
>>> Are these specifications of new crm command?
>>>
>> 
>> Yes, this is also a new feature in crmsh. When using agents from
>> ocf:heartbeat:, crmsh does not display the prefix part.
>
> Why not ocf:pacemaker? I don't see any benefit: You yould just decide to leave
> "ocf:" out...
>

So, if I also elided the prefix for ocf:pacemaker, it would not be
possible to know if "Dummy" refers to ocf:heartbeat:Dummy or
ocf:pacemaker:Dummy. It is a limitation of how crmsh works. Since the
CLI syntax is always generated statelessly from the XML, we can only
work with the information contained there.

>> 
>>> Q3) We used the editing feature in the next procedure, but it is not 
>> changed.
>>> Is a procedure of our editing wrong?
>> 
>> Unfortunately, this is a bug in pacemaker, fixed very recently:
> [...]
>
> Regards,
> Ulrich
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-HA mailing list
> Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems

-- 
// Kristoffer Grönlund
// kgronlund@suse.com
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]