----- Original Message -----
> From: "Luke Kanies" <l...@puppetlabs.com>
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:27:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Anchor pattern (was Re: [Puppet-dev] Puppet 4 discussions)
>
> On Aug 29, 2013, at 12:24 PM, John Bollinger <john.bollin...@stjude.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > 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> wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Andy Parker <an...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Luke Kanies <lu...@puppetlabs.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> On Aug 28, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Andy Parker <an...@puppetlabs.com> 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.
>
> As mentioned in my other email, the solution to this problem should not in
> any way require changes to containment semantics, and certainly shouldn't
> require class evaluation to indicate class containment. As I said, it used
> to do that for the first instance (but not for second, which led to some
> inconsistencies and surprises, which is why I removed it). These days,
> though, in general classes only contain resources, not other classes. What
I am not sure I follow and have missed some of this thread while on hols but
here is why people use the anchor pattern:
class one {
include two
notify{$name: }
}
class two {
notify{$name: }
}
class three {
notify{$name: require => Class["one"]}
}
include one, three
$ puppet apply test.pp
Notice: /Stage[main]/One/Notify[one]/message: defined 'message' as 'one'
Notice: /Stage[main]/Three/Notify[three]/message: defined 'message' as 'three'
Notice: /Stage[main]/Two/Notify[two]/message: defined 'message' as 'two'
Notice: Finished catalog run in 0.11 seconds
The desired outcome is that Notify[two] is before Notify[three]
So unless I am reading you wrong, the anchor pattern is used specifically
because
today many people have classes contained in other classes and it does not work
as desired.
Also I think fixing this only for the new resource like syntax and not for
include would be a mistake - though i can see why that would be the chosen
path as doing it otherwise would easily create loops etc.
--
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.
