On Monday, December 22, 2014 11:11:24 AM UTC-6, John Bollinger wrote:
> > I went looking for holes to poke in this approach, and didn't find any. > Having just posted that, I thought of this: use of a Transition resource makes sense only if all the 'prior_to' resources have a 'before' relationship with the final state of the transitioned resource, so in the event that the transitional state is successfully applied, but one or more of the 'prior_to' resources fails, the final state of the transitioned resource normally will not be applied. I think I'd place that in the "nothing ventured, nothing gained" category, though. That such a risk exists should certainly be documented, but it's no reason to nix the idea. If such a risk is intolerable for some particular resource then no transitional state should be modeled for it. A full-blown type and provider may be the only viable solution in such a case. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/e5d5c40a-7d33-4b62-8e1b-bf07bcbdd7d5%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
