[ClusterLabs Developers] Proposed future feature: multiple notification scripts

Andrew Beekhof andrew at beekhof.net
Mon Dec 7 19:29:34 EST 2015

> On 8 Dec 2015, at 2:55 AM, Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 12/07/2015 08:44 AM, Digimer wrote:
>> On 07/12/15 05:07 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:29:24AM -0600, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/2015 05:26 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>>>> On 3 Dec 2015, at 10:23 AM, Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> For backward compatibility, the (brand new!) notification-agent and
>>>>>> notification-recipient cluster properties would be kept as deprecated
>>>>>> shortcuts for a single notify script and recipient.
>>>>> Actually, that didn't make it into an upstream release.
>>>>> So we could just pretend it never happened :)
>>>>> Sure its in RHEL but we haven’t advertised it yet and it can be our problem to do backwards compatibility for - no need to inflict that on upstream.
>>>> OK, we'll leave notifications as an undocumented/unsupported technology
>>>> preview in 1.1.14, with significant interface changes expected in a
>>>> later version. Users can play with it if they want, but with the
>>>> understanding that their configs/scripts will need changes to work with
>>>> future versions.
>>> It is overly optimistic to expect this. We have a problem people
>>> reading any documentation at all, let alone whether a certain
>>> thing is technology preview. I'd be wary of adding new features
>>> in a released version for which interface is going to change.
> Good point, but it's too thoroughly integrated to back out now.

not at all.  we only need to pull out the config option (and keep the inverse patch for rhel)

> If
> backward compatibility isn't too intrusive in the code, we can provide
> it upstream. But the feature won't be in the official upstream
> documentation, so people will really have to seek it out to use it.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dejan
>> What about having an 'enable_tech_preview_features="true"' (or
>> something) option?
> I don't think it's worth the time to implement and maintain. Plus, even
> though it's not a good idea to run a cluster with varying versions of
> pacemaker, it is possible, so this would be potentially problematic as a
> cluster-wide property, and a nightmare as a node property.
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> Developers at clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers

More information about the Developers mailing list