Using anchors happens alot less than you think if you write minimal functionality into your subclasses.
You don't put anchors in subclasses to anchor them to the parents. You may need anchors in subclasses if they include other classes whose resources need to be ordered, but this really shouldn't happen much and can usually be handled in the parent class as part of the main anchoring (i.e. put apache2 in foo instead of foo::web) While it's true that many modules on the forge do not appropriately use anchoring, many of the most popular ones do and this situation improves constantly. On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:57:54 AM UTC-6, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: > > Hi, > what plans are in place to deal with bug #8040: > http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/8040 > > I have some Puppet experience but I'm also looking at Chef and Ansible > right now in order to determine which configuration management to commit to > and being able to build and re-use components is a major issue. > Right now this bug seems to make it almost impossible to build non-trivial > components and the workaround mentioned isn't really useful as a) it means > you have to lace each and every class with dependencies just to anchor them > to their parents an b) you will not be able to use components from e.g. > puppet-forge because they will most likely miss this anchoring as well. > > So what is the story here? Is this being worked on in some concrete way or > is re-usability not something that is considered important in the Puppet > ecosystem? > > Regards, > Dennis > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
