[ClusterLabs] Antw: [EXT] Feedback wanted: OCF Resource Agent API 1.1 proposed for adoption

[Ulrich Windl]

>>> Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com> schrieb am 10.03.2021 um 00:07 in
Nachricht
<a8eb6645e324a56df0193b4d005265db5c34795d.camel at redhat.com>:
> Hi all,
> 
> After many false starts over the years, we finally have a proposed 1.1
> version of the resource agent standard.
> 
> Discussion is invited here and/or on the pull request:
> 
>  https://github.com/ClusterLabs/OCF‑spec/pull/24 
> 
> One goal is to formalize widespread existing practices that deviate
> from the 1.0 standard, such as the notify, promote, and demote actions;
> exit statuses 8, 9, 190, and 191; and allowing installers to choose
> where agents are installed (officially /usr/ocf/resource.d in 1.0, even
> though everyone actually uses /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d).
> 
> Another goal is to add optional new meta‑data hints that user
> interfaces can benefit from, such as whether a parameter is required or
> deprecated.

What I always was wondering was line-lengths for metadata descriptions:
To wrap, or not to wrap?

> 
> The new standard deprecates the "unique" descriptor for parameters,
> which was misused by Pacemaker, and replaces it with two new ones,
> "reloadable" (to handle what Pacemaker used it for) and "unique‑group"
> (to handle its original purpose more flexibly). A new "reload‑params"
> action updates any "reloadable" parameters.
> 
> The last major change is completing the transition away from
> master/slave terminology, renaming the roles to promoted/unpromoted.

I'm worried about all those books describing master/slave flip flops... ;-)
And all those students having a "master"...
I have my own opinion on this:
How many people were harmed by those names, and how many will benefit from
using different words for the same concept?

> 
> The changes are designed to be backward‑compatible, so for the most
> part, agents and software written to either standard can be used with
> each other. However for agents that support promote/demote (which were
> not part of 1.0), it is recommended to use 1.1 agents only with
> software that explicitly supports 1.1. Once the 1.1 standard is
> adopted, we intend to update all ClusterLabs software to support it.
> 
> The pull request description has a more detailed summary of all the
> changes, and the standard itself can be compared with:
> 
>
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/OCF‑spec/blob/master/ra/1.0/resource‑agent‑api.m

> d
> 
>
https://github.com/kgaillot/OCF‑spec/blob/ocf1.1/ra/1.1/resource‑agent‑api.md

> 
> My goal is to merge the pull request formally adopting 1.1 by the end
> of this month.
> ‑‑ 
> Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Manage your subscription:
> https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users 
> 
> ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/