[Linux-HA] Handling colocation constraints with more than 2 entries

Andrew Beekhof andrew at beekhof.net
Fri Oct 8 07:08:48 MDT 2010

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at novell.com> wrote:
> On 2010-10-08T08:27:45, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
>> I'd be in favor of the join construct above (although I'd probably
>> call it "depends"),
> Yes, one of the hardest problem in all of computer science is naming
> things ;-)
>> but it doesn't address the original problem that
>> the shell syntax for colocation constraints switches direction when
>> you add a third element[1].
> Yes, that too should be fixed.

Another idea, instead of colocation+brackets, add colocation_set and
use whatever new semantics you prefer.

> I'm just voicing that the whole notion of "ordered" collocation gives me
> the creeps, and that I'd want to abstract this differently.

The ordered colocation doesn't go away though, you're just piggy
backing of ordering somewhere else.

> Similarly, we could do away with groups now - the shell could have that
> object, yes, but what else is it than a straightforward resource set
> that wraps around the primitives? (Just like the group object, just in a
> different section.) [1]
> Regards,
>    Lars
> [1] Bonus points if you can figure out how to handle cloned groups then
> ;-)

Now that we've finally got this sort of thing working nicely and you
want to rewrite it?

Don't make me hurt you :-)

> --
> Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc.
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
> "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-HA mailing list
> Linux-HA at lists.linux-ha.org
> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems

More information about the Linux-HA mailing list