Hi John, thanks for coming up with such elaborate ideas, your input to this group adds a lot of meat to many discussions.
I can agree with a lot of what you wrote, barring the following remarks: On 01/26/2012 06:00 PM, jcbollinger wrote: > Modules provide definitions of resources that they own. For the most > part, those definitions should be virtual to avoid unnecessary inter- > module coupling, but some resources are reasonable to define > concretely. Jeff has made a strong point against using virtual resources in modules at all, causing me to shift my own views as well. If I understand him correctly, one of the chief problems is the high probability of accidental collection/realisation of such resources by the end user's manifest. On 01/26/2012 06:48 PM, jcbollinger wrote: > I can imagine many -- perhaps most -- resource definitions being > replaced or supplemented by constraint declarations. The model is intriguing, but gives me another usability headache. Wouldn't this put an end to self-contained modules? I wrote in a latter mail (is this the same thread? Sorry, I use this only through Thunderbird and get confused sometimes) how I see need for explicit module dependencies and a system that can automatically download required modules from the forge. I can see this supplementing your idea of constraints nicely, but without it, downloading modules could quickly become a nightmare for users. Cheers, Felix -- 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 puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
