[ClusterLabs Developers] RA as a systemd wrapper -- the right way?

[Jan Pokorný]

On 26/09/16 15:15 +0100, Adam Spiers wrote:
> [snipped]
> 
> To clarify: I am not religiously defending this "wrapper OCF RA" idea
> of mine to the death.  It certainly sounds like it's not as clean as I
> originally thought.  But I'm still struggling to see any dealbreaker.
> 
> OTOH, I'm totally open to better ideas.
> 
> For example, could Pacemaker be extended to allow hybrid resources,
> where some actions (such as start, stop, status) are handled by (say)
> the systemd backend, and other actions (such as monitor) are handled
> by (say) the OCF backend?  Then we could cleanly rely on dbus for
> collaborating with systemd, whilst adding arbitrarily complex
> monitoring via OCF RAs.

Yes, I totally forgot about "monitor" action in the original post. 
It would also likely be usually implemented by the mentioned
"systemd+hooks" class, just as the mentioned "pre-start" and
"post-stop" equivalents (note that behavior of standard OCF agents
could be split so that, say, "start" action is "pre-start" action plus
daemon executable invocation, which would make the parts of behavior
more reusable, e.g., as systemd hooks, than it's the case nowadays).

-- 
Jan (Poki)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20160926/7751aefa/attachment-0004.sig>