Except foo::_files is a "syntax error"......
Kent
2008/9/23 Kenton Brede <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I vote for foo::_files.
> Kent
>
> 2008/9/22 Digant C Kasundra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> When things are fairly small, it isn't an issue and certainly documentation
>> is key. I'm just very OCD about conventions and naming and I like having
>> things named in ways that it is explicit to the purpose. Generally, it is
>> fairly easy to tell that ssh::files would most likely be a class that deals
>> with the files associated with setting up ssh and not some variation of how
>> ssh is setup. But, in general, when I see foo::bar, I assume bar is a
>> subclass (ergo derivative of) foo. But since both fragments and subclasses
>> are useful in Puppet, for those that so feel inclined (and I think the
>> Puppet community has expressed interest in consistent style and practice
>> guides to grow the community closer), I think a naming convention to
>> differentiate is valuable, even if just for us OCD folks. :)
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Kenton Brede" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: puppet-users@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 12:40:09 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
>> Subject: [Puppet Users] Re: Module Standards
>>
>>
>> 2008/9/16 Digant C Kasundra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> So my proposal is if there is need or want to break up large classes, the
>>> fragment class (i.e. foo::files) be named specifically in a way that makes
>>> it clear it is not a complete and functional class but only a fragment.
>>> Such a naming convention might call for something like foo::_files or
>>> foo::inc::files. I would like to open this topic up to discussion to the
>>> greater community (you guys) and see what you think.
>>>
>>
>> I guess I could see this if the classes were scattered throughout
>> /manifests/.
>> I approach module building the same way in terms of breaking the classes
>> into smaller pieces. I guess I don't see a specific need for a
>> fragment designation.
>> I usually create a class named "foo" in init.pp and include the sub
>> classes there:
>>
>> class files {
>> # include files class groups
>> include files::all
>> include files::rhel5
>> # include files class hosts
>> include files::host1
>> }
>>
>> In site.pp I just "include foo." I document all this in the README
>> and comment the init.pp file. It just seems natural to me that way.
>> My setup isn't probably as complex as some so maybe I'm missing
>> something......
>> Kent
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Digant C Kasundra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Technical Lead, ITS Unix Systems and Applications, Stanford University
>>
>> >>
>>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
