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

[Jan Friesse]

Ulrich Windl napsal(a):
>>>> 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?

It is closer to newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak 
(specially un- prefix) and that seems to be a doubleplusgood thing.


> 
>>
>> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Manage your subscription:
> https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> 
> ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
>