Hi > What I basically mean is, would anyone ever use 'include' once > 'require' exists? > > I can't think of a case where you'd want to evaluate a class but not > indicate that the evaluating class depends on the evaluated class. If > that's the case, it makes sense to provide this new 'require' function > and deprecate the existing 'include' (rather than change the behaviour > of 'include').
I just can speak for myself, but I use include a lot and as far as I understood your discussion the change would cut my use case of include. So for example I have a class apache which describes the package and the service. Besides that I have a define vhost, which describes a certain vhost and which might be used various time per node. In the define I include the class apache, to be sure that I have the necessary things around so my vhost can be sourced. However I don't want to have everything already evaluated, as I simply require the package for the vhost-file (so the necessary paths like /etc/httpd/ is created due to the package install) but I'd like to notify the service as a vhost have been changed. So I'm somehow weaving my vhost-definition into the dependency chain of my apache class. As far as I understood your bugreport and your emails this wouldn't work anymore as it would lead to a dependency cycle, not? However I might be wrong and so simply didn't understand everything. cheers pete --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
