[Pacemaker] RFC: Compacting constraints

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejanmm at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 12:17:56PM +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at suse.de> wrote:
>> > Could we introduce an "conjoin" dependency which merges both?
>>
>> What about an ordered=(FALSE|true) attribute for colocation constraints?
>>
>>   first == rsc, then == with-rsc, *-action would be set based on the
>> rsc(-with)-role
>
> Would that work?

Why wouldn't it?

>> I mean, we could create a new construct, but I'm worried it might
>> cause (additional) confusion.
>
> I think that such a construct would be useful, but I'm more
> inclined to have it at the shell level and that it would actually
> have predefined scores, e.g.
>
> conjoin base-clone dummy1 [dummy2 ...]
>
> would expand into those two constraints. No promises yet, since
> I'm still not sure how difficult that would be to implement.
> Expansion is obviously not a problem, but the other direction may
> easily be one.

Thats what I'd worry about.
I'm happy to have it at the cib level, I'm just not sure we want to
invent a whole new object for it.
It would make swapping between the two cases annoying.

> Also, I think I'd prefer to have this as a very
> simple and obvious construct, without any extra embelishments as
> it has been suggested by Lars below. Simply because I believe
> that there are just a few of such order/collocation combinations
> which would be used.
>
> "conjoin" sounds sort of funny to me (as a non-native speaker).

Equally so to me, and Australian is kinda like english.