On Apr 19, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Andrew Parker wrote:
> A strict mode would help quite a bit.
+1 Like etc etc ;-)
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other
randomness
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Pu
On Apr 19, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
> So the main, sane, use case for inheritance is to set resource defaults. That
> is the same thing I've heard from others, so at least people seem to agree on
> that :)
Yep, that's all I used them for.
>> Puppet could very desperately use a de
On Apr 19, 2012, at 1:49 PM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Andrew Parker"
>> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 9:43:36 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in T
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Parker"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 9:43:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>
>
> On Apr 19, 2012, at 1:28 PM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
&g
On Apr 19, 2012, at 1:28 PM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Andrew Parker"
>> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:42:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Te
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Parker"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:42:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>
> I've got a branch of puppet that has dynamic scoping remov
19, 2012 7:16:40 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>>
>>
>> On Apr 19, 2012, at 9:38 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>>> From: "Andrew Parker"
>>>> To: puppet-dev@googl
On Apr 19, 2012, at 11:45 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Andrew Parker"
>> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 7:16:40 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in T
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Parker"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 7:16:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>
>
> On Apr 19, 2012, at 9:38 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote
On Apr 19, 2012, at 10:58 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>> What do you do with inheritance (classes or nodes) wrt variables? Avoid?
>> Using a lot? Have a specific pattern that you follow?
>
> I have used inheritance for overriding an object -- since it
On Apr 19, 2012, at 9:38 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Andrew Parker"
>> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 5:30:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>&g
On Apr 19, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
> What do you do with inheritance (classes or nodes) wrt variables? Avoid?
> Using a lot? Have a specific pattern that you follow?
I have used inheritance for overriding an object -- since it's the only thing
that can accomplish that, but I found
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Parker"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 5:30:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>
>
> On Apr 19, 2012, at 1:21 AM, Ken Barber wrote:
>
> &g
On Apr 19, 2012, at 1:21 AM, Ken Barber wrote:
>> If I want a top-level variable, I'll ask for one. If I want a node-level
>> variable, I'd like to be able to ask for one (which I can't today afaik). I
>> never want either of them unless I ask for them by name.
>>
>> Yes, I do. Or an option to e
On Apr 18, 2012, at 4:27 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>>> On Apr 17, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
Has anyone seen something where a manifest used $::var in order to *not*
get the value of $var that is overridden in a node?
>>>
>>> U
> If I want a top-level variable, I'll ask for one. If I want a node-level
> variable, I'd like to be able to ask for one (which I can't today afaik). I
> never want either of them unless I ask for them by name.
>
> Yes, I do. Or an option to enable that at least. I realize that many people
> love
On Apr 18, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>> On Apr 17, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>>> Has anyone seen something where a manifest used $::var in order to *not*
>>> get the value of $var that is overridden in a node?
>>
>> Uh… I use it extensively.
>
> Ah, interesting. Could y
On Apr 18, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>> Has anyone seen something where a manifest used $::var in order to *not* get
>> the value of $var that is overridden in a node?
>
> Uh… I use it extensively.
Ah, interesting. Could you provide s
On Apr 17, 2012, at 9:15 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
> I think having a node variable merge in with top scope variables might
> be acceptable in most cases - its roughly how things used to be have - but
> its magical and weird and just not clear whats going on.
>
> Having that magical behavior support
On Apr 17, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
> Has anyone seen something where a manifest used $::var in order to *not* get
> the value of $var that is overridden in a node?
Uh… I use it extensively.
>> At the moment (and under the new regime)
>>
>> $var = "top scope"
>> node default {
On Apr 18, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
> Is there something that you could point me to in order to understand what are
> considered the pitfalls of the language, a promoted style that is considered
> effective, and when leaving that style might be appropriate (I'm thinking
> about s
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Parker"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 6:49:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2012, at 8:47 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
On Apr 18, 2012, at 8:47 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
> Puppet is pretty frustrating, without years of using it its just really
> hard to grasp some of the problems people have with the language. A
> suggestion or statement about what is "never needed" is often incorrect
> coming from someone who stu
- Original Message -
> From: "Randall Hansen"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 4:41:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Ken Barber
> wrote:
>
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Ken Barber wrote:
> I would prefer to see a high-level specification of where we want to
> be in a year, two years ... let it be nutted out in
> workshops/discussions ... and then develop against it. Maybe I'm
> wrong, and others feel they do have a high enough p
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Parker"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 1:34:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>
> So the decision is that we are going to leave the $::var vs.
mplete.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:36 PM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Andrew Parker"
>> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:21:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scopin
oglegroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:21:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>>
>>
>> On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:31 PM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>>> From: &
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Parker"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:21:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>
>
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:31 PM, R.I.Pienaar wrote
On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:31 PM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Andrew Parker"
>> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:21:23 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>>
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Parker"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:21:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>
>
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 10:08 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
> >
*wouldn't
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Ken Barber wrote:
>> True. So what I suggested was either give nodes a special status to change
>> the top-scope, which seems to be universally acknowledged as a bad idea.
>
> I would define it as 'universally acknowledged'. As an incremental
> change i
> True. So what I suggested was either give nodes a special status to change
> the top-scope, which seems to be universally acknowledged as a bad idea.
I would define it as 'universally acknowledged'. As an incremental
change its not a bad idea, since it works in with what we've got. If
we're goi
On Apr 17, 2012, at 10:08 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
> We then started going down the route of saying all this leaky scope stuff
> is bad, its magical, its non deterministic, when you read a piece of code
> you have no idea what data you are actually looking at. Is it a fact, or
> a variable, a
(it would help a lot if you set your mail client to text only as is the
convention on the list)
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Parker"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 5:47:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to var
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>
> Since one person's magic is another's reasonable semantics, would you might
> explaining or pointing me to your understanding of what is "magical" and
> what is not?
>
IMO, more magic would be "merging top and node scope" but not allowing
On Apr 17, 2012, at 9:21 AM, James Turnbull wrote:
>
> Whilst I'm not so keen on the @facts syntax I agree with RI. We already
> have magic variables (which have changed their magical properties
> several times since my involvement with the project) we don't need
> anymore magic.
>
Since one pe
I'd like to add a vote to the direction that RI and James are taking this.
Variables have been painful from the beginning and it would be nice to
have a seriously concrete system to work with.
When making this decision, please look at how class auto-scoping
(modules/foo vs. modules/bar/foo) will
On Apr 17, 2012, at 9:15 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>>
>> What I am trying to address is issue of what it means for a node to
>> shadow a top-scope variable. Another possible solution is that we
>> just remove node from the language. Then the entire issue goes away,
>> but everything is still possibl
> We should either say we have a data story that revolves around:
>
> - facts
> - parameterized classes
> - ENCs and systems like Hiera
>
> these are all hard non magical things, you know where your variables come
> from. You know what they are and what can override them. Mix in the @facts
> sty
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Parker"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 5:05:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>
>
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 2:03 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
> &g
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>
> On Apr 16, 2012, at 11:00 PM, Ken Barber wrote:
>
> Sounds like a great change Andy. I'd be wary about version - I can't think
> of one now bit there might be a case where people ref top scope, but now
> they get node scope which may be sur
Question: If a node declaration masks a top-scope variable, is there ever a
good reason to refer to the old value?
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 2:03 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
> > I like the general idea for sure, but I think it still leaves way too
On Apr 17, 2012, at 2:03 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
> I like the general idea for sure, but I think it still leaves way too much
> magic and layering and things that kind of needs to be studied to be
> understoof
> rather than just be obvious.
>
> So I'd like to just mention that a few of us thinks
On Apr 16, 2012, at 11:00 PM, Ken Barber wrote:
> Sounds like a great change Andy. I'd be wary about version - I can't think of
> one now bit there might be a case where people ref top scope, but now they
> get node scope which may be surprising and may break code perhaps?
>
Exactly, which is
- Original Message -
> From: "Ken Barber"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 7:00:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>
>
>
> Sounds like a great change Andy. I'd be wary about v
Sounds like a great change Andy. I'd be wary about version - I can't think
of one now bit there might be a case where people ref top scope, but now
they get node scope which may be surprising and may break code perhaps?
On Apr 16, 2012 10:20 PM, "Andrew Parker" wrote:
> As I hope everyone is awar
On Apr 16, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Eric Sorenson wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2012, at 2:19 PM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>
>> $var is going to evaluate to "node". If you change that to $::var, then
>> you'll end up with "top scope". This doesn't seem right and so we are
>> thinking of changing it so that variabl
On Apr 16, 2012, at 2:19 PM, Andrew Parker wrote:
> $var is going to evaluate to "node". If you change that to $::var, then
> you'll end up with "top scope". This doesn't seem right and so we are
> thinking of changing it so that variables declared in a node actually put
> their variables in th
As I hope everyone is aware, we are planning on removing dynamic scoping in
Telly (http://docs.puppetlabs.com/guides/scope_and_puppet.html). We know that
the deprecation warnings that puppet 2.7 has been issuing have been wrong, but,
hurray!, there is a fix going in for that! However, there is s
50 matches
Mail list logo
