On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:02:55 AM UTC-7, Jon Schewe wrote: > > > Am I getting this right that instead of just leaving the functionality in > puppet I should now call out to another application to have node-specific > variables? This seems like a step in the wrong direction. It's really nice > that in puppet 2.6 I've been able to keep all of my configuration in my > nodes.pp file. > > No no no! Don't worry. I'm actually in the process of codifying this for the reference docs right now, but here are the "new" scoping rules:
Local scope -> inherited scope (as created by the "inherits" keyword; these should remain fairly rare) -> node scope -> top scope Node scope is staying a thing, because it has to for the time being. - It's unfortunately anonymous, so there's no way to address it directly. You have to use the variable's short name to get there. - But you can most assuredly get there. - However, some versions in the 2.7.x series issue a false warning when you're trying to get to node scope. more recent versions should have that fixed. Did that clear things up? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/PiDnrx-QzPMJ. 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.
