> We may have a good idea of how to define a custom language, still we
> are going to need to design a clean interface at catalog level more or
> less close to what is written here. If we can get a clean interface,
> the custom language implemented, and TAP tests that take advantage of
> this user interface to check the node/group statuses, I guess that we
> would be in good shape for this patch.
>
> Anyway that's not a small project, and perhaps I am over-complicating
> the whole thing.
Yes. The more I look at this, the worse the idea of custom syntax looks. Yes, I realize there are drawbacks to using
JSON,but this is worse.
Further, there's a lot of horse-cart inversion here. This proposal involves letting the syntax for sync_list
configurationdetermine the feature set for N-sync. That's backwards; we should decide the total list of features we
wantto support, and then adopt a syntax which will make it possible to have them.
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(opinions are my own)
