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

List:       linux-ha-dev
Subject:    Re: [Linux-ha-dev] Uniquness OCF Parameters
From:       Alan Robertson <alanr () unix ! sh>
Date:       2011-06-20 15:00:41
Message-ID: 4DFF6099.2070603 () unix ! sh
[Download RAW message or body]

On 06/17/2011 02:43 AM, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 03:52:37PM -0600, Alan Robertson wrote:
> > On 06/16/2011 02:51 AM, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:48:20AM +0200, Florian Haas wrote:
> > > > On 2011-06-16 09:03, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> > > > > With the current "unique=true/false", you cannot express that.
> > > > Thanks. You learn something every day. :)
> > > Sorry that I left off the "As you are well aware of,"
> > > introductionary phrase. ;-)
> > > 
> > > I just summarized the "problem":
> > > 
> > > > > Depending on what we chose the meaning to be,
> > > > > parameters marked "unique=true" would be required to
> > > > > either be all _independently_ unique,
> > > > > or be unique as a tuple.
> > > And made a suggestion how to solve it:
> > > 
> > > > > If we want to be able to express both, we need a different markup.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Of course, we can move the markup out of the parameter description,
> > > > > into an additional markup, that spells them out,
> > > > > like<unique params="foo,bar" /><unique params="bla" />.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But using unique=0 as the current non-unique meaning, then
> > > > > unique=<small-integer-or-even-named-label-who-cares>, would
> > > > > name the scope for this uniqueness requirement,
> > > > > where parameters marked with the same such label
> > > > > would form a unique tuple.
> > > > > Enables us to mark multiple tuples, and individual parameters,
> > > > > at the same time.
> > > If we really think it _is_ a problem.
> > If one wanted to, one could say
> > unique=1,3
> > or
> > unique=1
> > unique=3
> > 
> > Then parameters which share the same uniqueness list are part of the
> > same uniqueness grouping.  Since RAs today normally say unique=1, if one
> > excluded the unique group 0 from being unique, then this could be done
> > in a completely upwards-compatible way for nearly all resources.
> That is what I suggested, yes.
> Where unique=0 is basically "not mentioning the unique hint".
Originally that's what I thought you said.  But somehow read it 
differently later.  Perhaps I got my comment authorship cross-wired.  
Wouldn't be hard to imagine ;-)


-- 
     Alan Robertson<alanr@unix.sh>

"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship...  Let me claim from you \
at all times your undisguised opinions." - William Wilberforce

_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/


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