[ClusterLabs Developers] [questionnaire] Do you overload pacemaker's meta-attributes to track your own data?

[Andrei Borzenkov]

28.06.2018 21:23, Jan Pokorný пишет:
...
>   
>   This initiative is meant to consist of two steps:
>   
>   a. modify the documentation to expressly detail said lexical
>      requirement
>      - you can read draft of my change as a pull request for pacemaker:
>        https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/pull/1523/files
>        (warning: the respective discussion was somewhat heated,
>        and is not a subject of examination nor of a special interest
>        here), basically I suggest "x-*" naming, with full recommended
>        convention being "x-appname_identifier"
>   
>   b. add a warning to the logs/standard error output (daemons/CLI)
>      when not recognized as pacemaker's claimed identifier nor
>      starting with dedicated prefix(es), possibly referring to
>      the documentation stanza per a., in a similar way the user
>      gets notified that no fencing devices were configured
>      - this would need to be coded
>      - note that this way, you would get actually warned about
>        your own typos in the meta-attribute identifiers even
>        if you are not using any high-level tooling
> 
>   This may be the final status quo, or the eventual separation
>   of the identifiers makes it really easy to perform other schema
>   upgrade related steps with future major schema version bumps
>   _safely_.  Nobody is immediately forced to anything, although
>   the above points should make it clear it's prudent to get ready
>   (e.g. also regarding the custom tooling around that) in respect
>   to future major pacemaker/schema version bumps and respective
>   auto-upgrades of the configuration (say it will be declared
>   it's valid to upgrade to pacemaker 3.0 only from as old pacemaker
>   as 2.0 -- that's the justification for acting _now_ with preparing
>   sane grounds slowly).
> 
> * * *
> 
> So now the promised questions; just send a reply where you [x] tick
> your selections for the questions below, possibly with some more
> commentary on the topic, and preferrably on-list (single of your
> choice is enough):
> 
> 1. In your cluster configurations, do you carry meta-attributes
>    other than those recognized by pacemaker?
> 
>    [X] no
> 
>    [ ] yes (if so, can you specify whether for said constraints
>             rules, as a way to permanently attach some kind of
>             administrative piece of information, whether you
>             have the whole custom tooling around this, etc.?)
> 
> 2. How do you feel about said meta-attributes' namespace separation
>    proposal (as summarized in documentation edit per above link)?
> 
>    [X] no feelings/not related to my use cases (e.g., haven't used
>        custom meta-attributes possibility before, no inclination to
>        use that in the future)
> 
>    [ ] too cumbersome, better to live with the risk of the future
>        clashes now (and with the risk of distant future automatic
>        upgrade doing accidentally a wrong thing)
> 
>    [ ] acceptable, but only as an interim solution
> 
>    [ ] acceptable without complaints
> 
> * * *
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20180701/ebeb6bc4/attachment.sig>