[Pacemaker] Doc: Resource templates

Andrew Beekhof andrew at beekhof.net
Mon Dec 12 15:25:52 EST 2011

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.

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list