[OCF] ocf-shellfuncs standardization - Comments? Objections?

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

On 2005-07-04T18:49:13, Alan Robertson <alanr at unix.sh> wrote:

> You can't find my descriptions in the LSB - because the aren't so well 
> defined as that.

Yeah, the logging functions in the LSB init scripts aren't too well
defined. I also didn't find many scripts which actually use them. (To be
exact, zero - but I assume some ISV might be using them anyway ;-)

> Do you know of a good way to implement what you've suggested?  That is, 
> to have them do whatever the local LSB implementation does when not 
> invoked with OCF vars not set, and to have them do what the local OCF 
> implementation wants, when they're invoked in the OCF environment.  I 
> guess I know of one way.  Maybe you can suggest a better one?
> 
> The way I know of is to have a dot-included file that redefines what 
> those functions do, and then "dot-include" that file when in the OCF 
> environment.  That'd work.  Not too elegant, but should be effective.

Well, in a way, this will be necessary for any script which wants to
double as both a LSB and an OCF script in any case; they'll have to
define various things differently anyway.

Redefining the logging functions as part of this doesn't seem to be too
difficult.

> And, adding an LSB_DEBUG and/or OCF_DEBUG flags.  That sounds like a 
> good idea.

Yes, it does.

> LMB:  What do you think about this?

Personally I like the "ocf_log" concept a bit better. It seems cleaner
to me. The wrappers can just as well wrap them around the LSB defined
ones as vice-versa ;-)

But, I don't have a very strong preference either way.


Sincerely,
    Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb at suse.de>

-- 
High Availability & Clustering
SUSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business	 -- Charles Darwin
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"