[Pacemaker] Shouldn't colocation -inf: be mandatory?

[Vadym Chepkov]

On Jun 16, 2010, at 2:55 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejanmm at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
>> colocation not-together -inf: d1 d2 d3
> 
> I think there is a problem with this syntax, particularly for +inf.
> 
> Consider:
>  colocation together1 inf: d1 d2
> 
> This means d1 must run where d2 is.
> 
> But if I add d3:
>  colocation together1 inf: d1 d2 d3
> 
> Now the original constraint is reversed and d2 must run where d1 is
> (think of how groups work).
> (Unless you're modifying the order).
> 
> I think we need:
>   no brackets: exactly 2 resources must be specified
>   () brackets: a non-sequential set
>   [] brackets: a sequential set
> 
> 

Would something like this be a legitimate syntax then?

colocation together-but-do-not-die 500: [ d1 d2 d3 ] anchor

To combine different types in on constraint, basically?

The reason I am asking, I don't think it's possible to do something like this now, isn't it?

colocation together1 500: d1 d2 d3
colocation together2 500: d4 d5 d6
colocation together0 inf: together2 together1

Thanks,
Vadym