Fwd: High Availability command line interface - future plans.

[Mark Canonical Ramm-Christensen]

Oops, I seem to be hitting reply rather than reply-all tonight!   Here's a
message I intended to send to everybody, and only sent to Gustavo.

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer <gustavo at niemeyer.net>wrote:

> These are *very* good points, Mark. Taking them to heart will
> definitely lead into a good direction for the overall feature
> development.
>

Thanks!


> It sounds like we should avoid using a "management" command for
> anything in juju, though. Most things in juju are about management one
> way or the other, so "juju management" becomes very unclear and hard
> to search for.
>
> Sure, that is probably the least palatable point, I'd origonally written
it as:

juju state --add

But switched to management because for some reason at the time it seemed
better -- but I think state-server is better than either, and more obvious.




> Instead, the command might be named after what we've been calling them:
>
>     juju add-state-server -n 2


> For implementation convenience sake, it would be okay to only ever
> accept -n 2 when this is first released. I can also imagine the
> behavior of this command resembling add-unit in a few aspects, since a
> state server is in fact code that just needs a home to run in. This
> may yield other common options across them, such as machine selection.


I agree with this.   Even to the point of erroring out if you don't add
enough state servers to bring it up to an odd number.

--Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20131109/8c0e2de9/attachment.html>