On 10/18/2010 03:13 PM, jcbollinger wrote:
I'm guessing you mean you have written sub-*classes* to do that job. That is indeed the Puppet way to do it, and I don't find it at all ridiculous.
Classes, yes - sorry, i should know better than to post before the first coffee of the day. :P
Perhaps you already understand this, but you do not grok Puppet until you know in your bones that Puppet is about achieving and maintaining *state*, and only incidentally about doing particular work. In this
That is an excellent point.
As a practical matter, an advantage of the subclass approach is that, if done right, including both the base class and the ::no class works, and results in the web service being absent (as if just the ::no class were included). That means you don't have to worry about finding and changing all the places in a complex configuration that the base class may be included.
Very good, thank you for your commentary ; assuming no other contradictory advice, i will continue writing ::no-style classes across the board.
-- Daniel Maher <dma AT witbe DOT net> "The Internet is completely over." -- Prince -- 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.
