>>> 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.
Also, if you demand a validation for "start", you could also demand one for "stop", etc.
>
> Otherwise your assertion that:
>
> > > Calling
> > > "validate-all" doesn't provide any additional information that calling
> > > "start" directly wouldn't; it is superfluous.
I think "start" can do semantic checks (like: "does the user exist?", "does the file exist?", "does the process exist?"). So these are not duplicated checks from validate-all, but 2nd-level checks.
>
> Is incorrect.
>
> I think most of us are agreeing that neither are desirable and that
>
> 3) we automatically call validate-all before start
No that's wrong IMHO. validate-all should be called before a resource's configuration is committed. Then the committed parameters are validated. Further testing involves real actions.
Wouldn't you agree?
Regards,
Ulrich
_______________________________________________
ha-wg-technical mailing list
ha-wg-technical@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ha-wg-technical
<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.
Also, if you demand a validation for "start", you could also demand one for "stop", etc.
>
> Otherwise your assertion that:
>
> > > Calling
> > > "validate-all" doesn't provide any additional information that calling
> > > "start" directly wouldn't; it is superfluous.
I think "start" can do semantic checks (like: "does the user exist?", "does the file exist?", "does the process exist?"). So these are not duplicated checks from validate-all, but 2nd-level checks.
>
> Is incorrect.
>
> I think most of us are agreeing that neither are desirable and that
>
> 3) we automatically call validate-all before start
No that's wrong IMHO. validate-all should be called before a resource's configuration is committed. Then the committed parameters are validated. Further testing involves real actions.
Wouldn't you agree?
Regards,
Ulrich
_______________________________________________
ha-wg-technical mailing list
ha-wg-technical@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ha-wg-technical