Mailing List Archive

Antw: Re: Re: RA spec: explicit "probe" operation?
>>> Andrew Beekhof <andrew@beekhof.net> schrieb am 08.07.2011 um 10:38 in Nachricht
<CAEDLWG2BiPcwDufASKp99NNrwy=p-OOpcd-xFbZ03DAXwDnQ2g@mail.gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Ulrich Windl
> <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Beekhof <andrew@beekhof.net> schrieb am 08.07.2011 um 02:54 in
> Nachricht
> > <CAEDLWG014utN21v6ekk=0Sm160NzuUwig9zOCy1iCtBeCNbXjQ@mail.gmail.com>:
> >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@suse.de> wrote:
> >> > On 2011-07-06T17:43:01, Florian Haas <florian.haas@linbit.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Either:
> >>
> >> 1) start must always call validate-all, or
> >> 2) RA writers duplicate the validate-all checks in start
> >
> > I disagree on that: Once the parameters are configured, they are not
> expected to change without revalidation. So there's little sense to check the
> SYNTAX gaian in "start". To my understanding "validate-all" may only do syntax
> checks, because any semantic checks may rely on resources that are not
> started at the moment when "validate-all" is called.
>
> I don't believe you understand what you're replying to.

Andrew,

maybe you got me, and mybe I got you: After your complaint I read the ra-dev docs on validate-all, and it writes nonsense:

"valiadate-all is usually wrapped ... is not only called when explitly invoking .. the action, but .. just about from any other function. Therefore, resource agent authors must keep in mind..."

That's nonsense: How can the "start" method call "validate-all" implicitly without the knowledge of the resource agent author? Besides of that "is usually" is not a specification.

[...omitting rest...]

Regards,
Ulrich


_______________________________________________
ha-wg-technical mailing list
ha-wg-technical@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ha-wg-technical
Re: Antw: Re: Re: RA spec: explicit "probe" operation? [ In reply to ]
On 07/08/2011 12:45 PM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>>> Andrew Beekhof <andrew@beekhof.net> schrieb am 08.07.2011 um 10:38 in Nachricht
> <CAEDLWG2BiPcwDufASKp99NNrwy=p-OOpcd-xFbZ03DAXwDnQ2g@mail.gmail.com>:
>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Ulrich Windl
>> <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew Beekhof <andrew@beekhof.net> schrieb am 08.07.2011 um 02:54 in
>> Nachricht
>>> <CAEDLWG014utN21v6ekk=0Sm160NzuUwig9zOCy1iCtBeCNbXjQ@mail.gmail.com>:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>> On 2011-07-06T17:43:01, Florian Haas <florian.haas@linbit.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Either:
>>>>
>>>> 1) start must always call validate-all, or
>>>> 2) RA writers duplicate the validate-all checks in start
>>>
>>> I disagree on that: Once the parameters are configured, they are not
>> expected to change without revalidation. So there's little sense to check the
>> SYNTAX gaian in "start". To my understanding "validate-all" may only do syntax
>> checks, because any semantic checks may rely on resources that are not
>> started at the moment when "validate-all" is called.
>>
>> I don't believe you understand what you're replying to.
>
> Andrew,
>
> maybe you got me, and mybe I got you: After your complaint I read the ra-dev docs on validate-all, and it writes nonsense:

Flamebaiting today, are we?

> "valiadate-all is usually wrapped ... is not only called when explitly invoking .. the action, but .. just about from any other function. Therefore, resource agent authors must keep in mind..."

Original: "Our company is skilled in many other things that are never
reported in the biased media."
Edit: "Our company ... killed ... m ... other ... t ... er ... e ... s
... a."
(Scott Adams, "The Dilbert Principle")

Reread that paragraph in the dev guide, try to understand it, then come
back again and tell me what's unclear.

> That's nonsense: How can the "start" method call "validate-all" implicitly without the knowledge of the resource agent author? Besides of that "is usually" is not a specification.

Lo and behold, it's not? Well you'll be surprised to learn that the
developer's guide is meant to guide developers, whereas a specification
would be meant to specify things.

Florian