On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 13:05, Trevor Vaughan <tvaug...@onyxpoint.com> wrote:
> So, I have this working, but I'm not quite sure why I needed to do it this > way. > I took a look at the exec:returns property and the associated 'sync' define. This is, for reference, a bad model to build new types off; like file, it predates a bunch of improvements in the code and we are only now able to find time to rework it into something sensible. > I was getting an error about returning an invalid event and I wasn't > sure what type of event I was supposed to return in sync. > > I noticed that exec is returning :executed_event but I don't see any > other mention of this in any code anywhere. > > So, likewise, I just stuck a random unique :some_var in my sync method > as the return value. > > But...why? So, like Stefan says, these are a theoretical future thing where we extend subscribe/notify to support more than just a single value per resource. This makes sense in a bunch of places, but that little bit of code is a tiny legacy of the same, which isn't really used. Just return 'nil' for now, and ignore it. Er, and generally, don't write a sync method if you can possibly avoid it. If you want to take a template for how to build these things so your life doesn't suck in 2.7, copy the package type and provider model. That is much more likely to be stable over the longer term. :) Daniel -- ⎋ Puppet Labs Developer – http://puppetlabs.com ✉ Daniel Pittman <dan...@puppetlabs.com> ✆ Contact me via gtalk, email, or phone: +1 (877) 575-9775 ♲ Made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons -- 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.
