[Pacemaker] RFC: Compacting constraints

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

On 2009-11-05T12:17:56, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:

> > Could we introduce an "conjoin" dependency which merges both?
> What about an ordered=(FALSE|true) attribute for colocation constraints?

That sucks completely, IMHO. I already hate the "sequential" attribute
in resource_sets passionately (it's named differently than everywhere
else ("order")), and it muddles up the distinction between order and
placement which is fundamental to the whole constraint design.

Why add it to the collocation, why not to ordered? Maybe make both of
them go away? Yuck! This is the design police, you've just been ticketed
;-)

Also, this wouldn't allow different scores for the order/colocation
constraints easily, which is, for example, needed for primitives
depending on clones.

The shell having a higher abstraction level than the CIB, on the other
hand, now that makes sense to me, so compacting the representation of
CIB elements there strikes me as useful.


Regards,
    Lars

-- 
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