On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 5:56:45 PM UTC-5, Andy Parker wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Luke Kanies
> <lu...@puppetlabs.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>> On Aug 28, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Andy Parker
>> <an...@puppetlabs.com<javascript:>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Luke Kanies
>> <lu...@puppetlabs.com<javascript:>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 28, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Andy Parker
>>> <an...@puppetlabs.com<javascript:>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > * #8040 - anchor pattern. I think a solution is in sight, but it
>>> didn't make 3.3.0 and it is looking like it might be backwards incompatible.
>>>
>>> Why would it be incompatible?
>>>
>>> That implies that we can't ship it until 4.0, which would be a tragedy
>>
>> worth fighting hard to avoid.
>>>
>>>
>> The only possible problem, that I know of, would be that it would change
>> the evaluation order. Once things get contained correctly that might cause
>> problems. We never give very strong guarantees between versions of puppet,
>> but given the concern with manifest order, I thought that I would call this
>> out as well.
>>
>>
>> Do you mean, for 2 classes that should have a relationship but currently
>> don't because of the bug (and the lack of someone using an anchor pattern
>> to work around the bug), fixing that bug would cause them to have a
>> relationship and thus change the order?
>>
>>
> No that shouldn't be a problem. I think we will be using making the
> resource syntax for classes ( class { foo: } ) create the containment
> relationship. That doesn't allow multiple declarations and so we shouldn't
> encounter the problem of the class being in two places.
>
But it *does* allow multiple declarations, so long as only the first one
parsed uses the parameterized syntax. There can be any number of other
places where class foo is declared via the include() function or require()
function.
>
>
>> That is, you're concerned that the bug has been around so long it's
>> considered a feature, and thus we can't change it except in a major release?
>>
>>
> More of just that the class will start being contained in another class
> and so it will change where it is evaluated in an agent run. That could
> cause something that worked before to stop working (it only worked before
> because of random luck). I'm also, right now, wondering if there are
> possible dependency cycles that might show up. I haven't thought that one
> through.
>
>
Yes, it is possible that dependency cycles could be created where none
existed before. About a week ago I added an example to the comments thread
on this issue; it is part of a larger objection to the proposed solution:
http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/8040#note-35. I also included a
proposed alternative solution that could go into Puppet 3.
John
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
