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

[Alan Robertson]

Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> 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.


We can provide both.

What should the standard do?


-- 
     Alan Robertson <alanr at unix.sh>

"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship...  Let me 
claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William 
Wilberforce