I'm not an expert on the topic, but my understanding is that you can't create a type without well-defined property/parameter names. Or, to put it a different way, there is currently no officially sanctioned means by which to support dynamic property/parameter names for a type or a provider.
One way that you could work around it is to define a property with a name like "options", whose value would be a hash. Then there are no restrictions on your hash key names. There is some discussion around this topic on the following tickets: http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/4113 http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/12843 You can see an example use of this pattern via the "install_options" parameter in the following type/provider pair: https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/blob/master/lib/puppet/type/package.rb https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/blob/master/lib/puppet/provider/package/msi.rb Note, however, that this is not generally considered to be an ideal solution to this sort of problem; I believe we are still honing in on the best long-term solution for this, so I'm not necessarily recommending this hash-based approach... but just thought I'd point it out in case it helps you get unstuck for now. On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Philip Brown <p...@bolthole.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I'm trying to write a new provider, to set SMF properties, and I need help > on a piece of puppet internals syntax. > I understand(?) that generally speaking when a resource has a KNOWN set of > property names, for example, "quota" and "readonly", all you have to do to > properly handle that sort of thing is, > > def quota > (return value of quota) > end > def quota= > (set quota to be equal to :name value) > end > > However, I'm trying to write a provider, where the property names are > free-form. > From the end user point of view, usage should look something like > > ###site.pp > node somenode{ > mynewtype { 'svc:/top/level/holder': > property => 'funky_holder_switch', > value => 'blue_switch' > } > } > ##### > > The name of the value in "property" is completely unknown to me at time of > writing the provider code. it could be literally anything the user chooses. > > How can I handle that? > > > For the curious, I already figure that the end result, will be a command > line that looks like > svccfg("-s", @resource[:name],"setprop", @resource[:property],"=", :value) > > > I know how to do that backend part. and I've written the front end 'type' > definition. I'm just missing the trick of finding the middle layer glue to > connect the two together :-} > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Puppet Developers" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-dev/-/JBpEd0SYmoMJ. > 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. > -- 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.
