On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:17 PM, R.I.Pienaar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Chris Price" <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:07:13 PM > > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Community input requested on potential > `unless_uid` addition to user resources > > > > p.s., if we do go down this path it would be interesting to see if > > there is some sort of existing library or standard specification for > > boolean logic expressions that we could piggy-back off of, rather > > than rolling our own. > > we wrote one recently for mcollective, no idea if its something that can > be generically used or made to be more generic > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Chris Price < [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > > > Aren't we, in effect, introducing another (mini, boolean) language > > with this sort of proposal, though? I agree that the generality and > > flexibility is appealing, but the idea of designing and supporting > > another parser / lexer gives me pause. > > > > > > Not to say that the benefits might not be worthwhile... just seems > > like a big leap to take. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Luke Kanies < [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > > > On May 16, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Pieter van de Bruggen wrote: > > > > > > […] > > > At the risk of getting booed off, what of this as a syntax? > > > > > > class users::resources { > > > resources { 'user': > > > purge => true, > > > unless => 'uid < 10000 OR uid > 20000'; > > > } > > > } > > > > > > This seems to be a more flexible syntax over a wider range of > > > properties and values, with the tradeoff of requiring a bit more > > > effort and explanation to use. Thoughts? > > > > I do like the more general syntax - and it's something that's been > > asked for a lot. I know there's at least one ticket about this. > > > > The counterpoint to your proposal is that there's working code for > > the other one, so we might ourselves rejecting a patch and instead > > doing nothing. > > > > -- > > Luke Kanies | http://about.me/lak | http://puppetlabs.com/ | > > +1-615-594-8199 > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Puppet Developers" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] . > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected] . > > 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 [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en. > > So, as a WAG, how long might it take to implement the generic version of this? How does that trade off against merging the pull request but running through a deprecation cycle later?
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
