[Pacemaker] Enable remote monitoring

[Andrew Beekhof]

On 05/12/2012, at 4:05 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at suse.com> wrote:

> On 2012-12-04T11:45:16, David Vossel <dvossel at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> I am okay with this constraint option being implemented, as it is the basis for this whole concept.  When it comes time to make this usable, don't make the abstraction people use to configure this relationship live at the crm shell... meaning, Don't introduce the idea of a container object in the shell which then goes off and explodes the constraint section under the hood.  Think this through and come up with a plan to represent what is going on at the configuration level.
> 
> A resource set already is defined in the constraint section, like Yan
> said.
> 
> That seems to do what you ask for? We have the primitives etc defined in
> the resources section and then glue them together in the constraints;
> that's as intended. Objects and their relationships.
> 
> Is there something you don't like about Yan's proposal? Sorry for asking
> a dumb question, but I can't tell from the above what you'd like to see
> changed.
> 
> How would you make this more "usable"?
> 
> Yes, a frontend might decide to render resource sets special (more like
> how groups are handled[1]), but I'm not sure I understand what you're
> suggesting.
> 
> 
> Regards,
>    Lars
> 
> [1] and it'd perhaps even be cleaner if, indeed, we had resource sets
> instead of groups, and could reference them as aggregates as well. But
> that may be a different discussion.

I would very much like to ditch groups for sets, but there are still some things I just can't get to work without the group pseudo resource.