[OCF]Updates Resource Agent API, Backwards compatibilty

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

--C1iGAkRnbeBonpVg
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2003-08-01T20:58:27,
   Ragnar Kj=F8rstad <linux-ha@ragnark.vestdata.no> said:

> Section 3.1, second paragraph:
> "The major number must be increased if a _backwards incompatible_ change
> is made to the API."
>=20
> What exactly do we mean by backwards incompatibilty?

Well, if a change was made which is backwards incompatible, you see ;-)

ie, adding _optional_ fields is not backwards incompatible and could be
handled with a minor number increase. Adding or removing a mandatory
field would likely require a major number increase.

> I read this as if any change that mandates an update in _either_ RM or
> RA is an backwards incompatible change, and requires a change in
> major-number. Is this the common understanding of this?

Well, I think that's the idea.

However, the RM can of course chose to support multiple versions (it
polls the RA, and could switch to a backwards-compatible handler, if it
really wanted to). The RA though requires that the RM talks to it in the
correct protocol version.


Sincerely,
    Lars Marowsky-Br=E9e <lmb@suse.de>

--=20
SuSE Labs - Research & Development, SuSE Linux AG
 =20
"If anything can go wrong, it will." "Chance favors the prepared (mind)."
  -- Capt. Edward A. Murphy            -- Louis Pasteur

--C1iGAkRnbeBonpVg
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/Lj0kudf3XQV4S2cRAmSLAJ9hjyLmIw86gnmalrC0PyK1sigExACfafV5
K0PVzDMkQp1JfQeh2yTfynw=
=BzwE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--C1iGAkRnbeBonpVg--