I didn't realise that would work.
Here's a trivial tested example derived from Felix's comment:
class mod::class($param1, $param2) {
file {"$param1/$param2": content => "Bla\n"}
}
class mod::class::sub1 inherits mod::class {
File["$param1/$param2"] {content => "Sub1\n"}
}
And then in the node:
class {"mod::class":
param1 => "/tmp",
param2 => "testfile"
}
include mod::class::sub1
And the result is that /tmp/testfile has "Sub1"
Actually it doesn't seem that confusing.
On Feb 22, 2:21 pm, Felix Frank <felix.fr...@alumni.tu-berlin.de>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On 02/17/2012 09:44 PM, jcbollinger wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> ...
>
> >> service
> >> {
> >> "php-fpm":
> >> require => [ File["/usr/local/etc/php-fpm.conf"], Package["php52"],
> >> File["/var/log/php-fpm/"], File["/etc/init.d/php-fpm"] ];
>
> >> }
>
> >> and in derived class i want for standalone(linux::php52::standalone)
> >> configuration restart service when config files changed like this:
>
> >> Service["php-fpm"]
> >> {
> >> ensure => true,
> >> enable => true,
> >> hasrestart => true,
> >> subscribe => [ File["/usr/local/etc/php-fpm.conf"],
> >> File["/usr/local/etc/php.ini"], File["/etc/init.d/php-fpm"],
> >> Package["php52"] ];
>
> >> }
>
> >> and in cluster class do nothing(restart of php will be made by cluster
> >> stack) like this:
>
> >> Service["php-fpm"]
> >> {
> >> enable => false
>
> >> }
>
> >> How cant accomplish this be composition? I would be very grateful
>
> > If no node uses linux::php52 directly (every node uses either
> > linux::php52::standalone or linux::php52::cluster) then just remove
> > the service declaration from linux::php52 and put separate ones in
> > linux::php52::standalone and linux::php52::cluster.
>
> > That makes especial sense in this example because the two erstwhile
> > subclasses don't need any Service["php-fpm"] property values in
> > common: the "require" property they both inherit is redundant with the
> > "subscribe" property that the standalone class provides.
>
> > Class inheritance is a convenience in certain special circumstances,
> > but only a complication in most. You don't ever need it in any
> > absolute sense.
>
> not commenting on what would be "best approach" here, I believe everyone
> has let themselves get distracted from the problem at hand.
>
> What should work is this structure: Given
> class mod::class($param1, $param2) { ... }
> class mod::class::sub1 inherits mod::class { ... }
> class mod::class::sub2 inherits mod::class { ... }
>
> You will then use these as
>
> class { "mod::class":
> param1 => ...,
> param2 => ...}
>
> include mod::class::sub1 # <- this does the overriding
> # or
> #include mod::class::sub2
> # ...or even both (not in the presented use case, though)
>
> This is a bit confusing, but mixing includes of base classes and
> subclasses is quite common when using the inheritance paradigm, and this
> is just an irky notation of the same, seeing as the base class is
> parameterized.
>
> HTH,
> 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.
