New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Support ordering constraint set attribute #84
Comments
To clarify this issue for myself and others interested in making constraints easier to use in crmsh and pacemaker, here is the core problem: With two resources, crmsh uses the attribute form of defining colocation constraints using the With more than two resources, crmsh needs to use resource sets to express the colocation constraint. Between resource sets, the semantics are the same as above: "colocate set A with set B with set C" becomes The problem is that within a resource set, the semantics are reversed. By default,
|
I am considering a new syntax, which would supersede the previous one. Here, the top level always expresses the "with" relationship. In fact, I'd introduce an explicit
As an added benefit thanks to the
Now, to express anything else we need parens. There is only one parenthesis form,
|
More: The confusion around the syntax implying that roles are per-resource when they are actually per resource-set can be fixed:
|
Another aspect of the current syntax which is confusing and which would be solved by the above suggestion:
|
On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 07:40:42AM -0800, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
Yes, that's true, it should've somehow exposed that the The issue, however, is also that the sets CRM syntax was created
Quite possible, as keeping sanity is not easy. I wonder though if |
Ah sorry, the above was quoting from another old mailing list mail. I do know what it does now. :) But yes, I think the new syntax can fix this as mentioned above: Since resource sets are always either top-level resource references or pairs of
|
FYI, I am proposing to deprecate the ordering attribute in #3141. The default behavior (ordering="group") would be retained. While one could argue that either behavior is preferable, offering both just makes it even more confusing, and higher-level tools can easily map whichever order they prefer to the CIB order. |
Close this issue as crmsh has never supported the ordering attribute, and it is now scheduled for deprecation |
From @beekhof:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: