[Pacemaker] Doc: Resource templates

[Tim Serong]

On 12/14/2011 02:57 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 04:18:33PM +0800, Gao,Yan wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, I believe that we already discussed the name. And there
> were no better ideas heard. But it could as well be that my
> memory fails me.

I don't recall any better naming ideas floating past either (although, 
now that Florian mentions "prototype", hmm...)

Anyway, IMO, overloading the word "template" isn't /too/ bad.  It could 
be qualified if necessary as "resource template" (the new feature we're 
talking about here) and "configuration template" (existing shell feature)...

Regards,

Tim
-- 
Tim Serong
Senior Clustering Engineer
SUSE
tserong at suse.com