[Pacemaker] Doc: Resource templates

[Gao,Yan]

On 12/13/11 04:25, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Gao,Yan <ygao at suse.com> wrote:
>> On 12/12/11 17:52, Florian Haas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Gao,Yan <ygao at suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/11 17:16, Florian Haas wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Gao,Yan <ygao at suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/12/11 15:55, Gao,Yan wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> As some people have noticed, we've provided a new feature "Resource
>>>>>>> templates" since pacemaker-1.1.6. I made a document about it which is
>>>>>>> meant to be included into "Pacemaker_Explained". I borrowed the
>>>>>>> materials from Tanja Roth , Thomas Schraitle, (-- the documentation
>>>>>>> specialists from SUSE) and Dejan Muhamedagic. Thanks to them!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Attaching it here first. If you are interested, please help review it.
>>>>>>> And if anyone would like to help convert it into DocBook and made a
>>>>>>> patch, I would be much appreciate. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can tell people would like to see a crm shell version of it as well.
>>>>>>> I'll sort it out and post it here soon.
>>>>>> Attached the crm shell version of the document.
>>>>>
>>>>> As much as I appreciate the new feature, was it really necessary that
>>>>> you re-used a term that already has a defined meaning in the shell?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/crm_cli.html#_templates
>>>>>
>>>>> Couldn't you have called them "resource prototypes" instead? We've
>>>>> already confused users enough in the past.
>>>> Since Dejan adopted the object name "rsc_template" in crm shell, and
>>>> call it "Resource template" in the help. I'm not inclined to use another
>>>> term in the document. Opinion, Dejan?
>>>
>>> I didn't mean to suggest to use a term in the documentation that's
>>> different from the one the shell uses. I am suggesting to rename the
>>> feature altogether. Granted, it may be a bit late to have a naming
>>> discussion now, but I haven't seen this feature discussed on the list
>>> at all, so there wasn't really a chance to voice these concerns
>>> sooner.
>> Actually there were discussions in pcmk-devel mailing list. Given that
>> it has been included into "pacemaker-1.2" schema and released with
>> pacemaker-1.1.6, it seems too late for us to change it from cib side
>> now
> 
> Technically its not yet in the 1.2 area, that change was pending on
> this documentation update.
OK then. I would like to hear more voices about that, since Dejan and
Tim have been working on this for quite some time too.

Regards,
  Gaoyan
-- 
Gao,Yan <ygao at suse.com>
Software Engineer
China Server Team, SUSE.