On Sep 25, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Nigel Kersten wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Nan Liu <n...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Nigel Kersten <nig...@google.com> wrote:
>>> eg the proposal is that if you don't specify the protocol, server
>>> address, modules prefix, module name, it is assumed you are referring
>>> to a file path relative to the 'files' subdirectory of the current
>>> module.
>>>
>>> If you wish to fully specify the source URI, you're free to do so.
>>
>> Since we can determine module_name in 2.6, I agree with this change.
>> But we should update template behavior so it's the same as file.
>> Currently for templates:
>>
>> content => template("foo.erb"),
>
> Ah I missed addressing this point.
>
> I don't think we can do this and still have backwards compatibility.
>
> How do you tell whether 'foo/bar.erb' refers to 'foo' the module or a
> subdirectory 'foo' in the current module? Which should take
> precedence? How do we throw a deprecation warning?
>
> I don't think we can feasibly forbid references to templates outside
> the current module. That would have a significant effect upon our
> ability to share modules.
>
> With the benefit of hindsight, we should possibly have made the source
> parameter, file function and template function consistent...
>
> Can we get there from here?
What about instead defining something uncommon to be "module root". Something
like, as a random example, "~/". Then the syntax goes from
"file:///modules/$modulename/file" to "~/file".
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-us...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
