Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

Hi, this is me assuming the role of the weird secluded neighbor who sometimes yells incoherent ramblings over the fence. Although this is pertinent: For onlyif and friends, there is already https://tickets.puppetlabs.com/browse/PUP-1125, where John and I have already done some thoughtwork.

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

Am Dienstag, 10. Mai 2016 10:52:55 UTC+2 schrieb Gareth Rushgrove: > > > > > > validate or verify it works yes, what other uses did you have in mind? > > I guess reporting or metrics or some sort of registration mechanism. > Their are other ways of doing those I realise, but as a light-weight

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

- Original Message - > From: "gareth rushgrove" > To: "puppet-dev" > Sent: Tuesday, 10 May, 2016 10:52:53 > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question > On 9 May 2016 at 13:58, R.I.Pienaar wrote: >> >> >> - Original Messag

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

On 9 May 2016 at 13:58, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > > > - Original Message - >> From: "gareth rushgrove" >> To: "puppet-dev" >> Sent: Monday, 9 May, 2016 14:55:12 >> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question > >> On 1 May 2016 at

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

cify which checks > could be run in noop mode defaulting to an empty array. > > Trevor > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:58 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > >> >> >> - Original Message ----- >> > From: "gareth rushgrove" >> > To: &quo

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > From: "gareth rushgrove" > > To: "puppet-dev" > > Sent: Monday, 9 May, 2016 14:55:12 > > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question > > > On 1 May 2016 at 19:33, R.I.Pienaar wrote: >

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

- Original Message - > From: "gareth rushgrove" > To: "puppet-dev" > Sent: Monday, 9 May, 2016 14:55:12 > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question > On 1 May 2016 at 19:33, R.I.Pienaar wrote: >> >> >> - Original Message

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

On 1 May 2016 at 19:33, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > > > - Original Message - >> From: "R. I. Pienaar" >> To: "puppet-dev" >> Sent: Thursday, 3 March, 2016 09:58:42 >> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question > >> - Orig

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

- Original Message - > From: "David Lutterkort" > To: "puppet-dev" > Sent: Saturday, 7 May, 2016 01:32:45 > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:02 PM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > >> Those checks you have in A

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:02 PM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > Those checks you have in AO are good but the barrier to entry is quite > high on > making those I felt Understood, and not trying to argue, but because I am curious: what's the barrier to entry that keeps you from using that mechanism ? Not

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

- Original Message - > From: "David Lutterkort" > To: "puppet-dev" > Sent: Friday, 6 May, 2016 21:30:18 > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 11:33 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > >> Late to follow up on th

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 11:33 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > Late to follow up on this but I had some time to work on this again, > No matter how late you are, there's always somebody later ;) For the whole cross-node dependency business, we built a sqlhealthcheck

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

- Original Message - > From: "R. I. Pienaar" > To: "puppet-dev" > Sent: Thursday, 3 March, 2016 09:58:42 > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question > - Original Message - >> From: "Erik Dalén" >> To: "puppet-

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

hanks, Trevor On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:58 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Erik Dalén" > > To: "puppet-dev" > > Sent: Thursday, 3 March, 2016 09:43:30 > > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question > >

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

- Original Message - > From: "Erik Dalén" > To: "puppet-dev" > Sent: Thursday, 3 March, 2016 09:43:30 > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question > On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 at 00:35 Kylo Ginsberg wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:47 AM,

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 at 00:35 Kylo Ginsberg wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:47 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > >> hello, >> >> I would like to add a metaparameter - which I think is easy now via >> Type.newmetaparam. >> > > We haven't been thinking of metaparameters as a general purpose extension > poi

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

I.Pienaar wrote: > >> >> >> - Original Message - >> > From: "Kylo Ginsberg" >> > To: "puppet-dev" >> > Sent: Wednesday, 2 March, 2016 06:59:08 >> > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question >&

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Nan Liu wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:43 AM R.I.Pienaar wrote: > >> >> >> - Original Message - >> > From: "Kylo Ginsberg" >> > To: "puppet-dev" >> > Sent: Wednes

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:43 AM R.I.Pienaar wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Kylo Ginsberg" > > To: "puppet-dev" > > Sent: Wednesday, 2 March, 2016 06:59:08 > > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question >

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

t-dev" > > Sent: Wednesday, 2 March, 2016 11:50:27 > > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question > > > Hi all, > > > > This is a very interesting conversation and I'm monitoring to see where > it > > ends up. > > > > You're going to

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

- Original Message - > From: "Trevor Vaughan" > To: "puppet-dev" > Sent: Wednesday, 2 March, 2016 11:50:27 > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question > Hi all, > > This is a very interesting conversation and I'm monitoring to see wh

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

(OK, fine, I still want language-level semaphores). Trevor On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:43 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Kylo Ginsberg" > > To: "puppet-dev" > > Sent: Wednesday, 2 March, 2016 06:59:08 > > S

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

- Original Message - > From: "Kylo Ginsberg" > To: "puppet-dev" > Sent: Wednesday, 2 March, 2016 06:59:08 > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:02 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > >> hello, >> >> Th

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:02 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > hello, > > Thanks for the replies, think I'll reply to both in one go > > - Original Message - > > From: "Luke Kanies" > > To: "puppet-dev" > > Sent: Friday, February

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

hello, Thanks for the replies, think I'll reply to both in one go - Original Message - > From: "Luke Kanies" > To: "puppet-dev" > Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 6:15:28 AM > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question >> On Feb 4, 2016, a

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

> On Feb 4, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Kylo Ginsberg wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:47 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: >> hello, >> >> I would like to add a metaparameter - which I think is easy now via >> Type.newmetaparam. > > We haven't been thinking of metaparameters as a general purpose extension >

Re: [Puppet-dev] metaparam question

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:47 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > hello, > > I would like to add a metaparameter - which I think is easy now via > Type.newmetaparam. > We haven't been thinking of metaparameters as a general purpose extension point. This came up once before that I know of, about a year ago, a

[Puppet-dev] metaparam question

hello, I would like to add a metaparameter - which I think is easy now via Type.newmetaparam. The thing that I can't seem to find any example of though is how to make this metaparameter do something on the nodes for all providers or all types. Imagine there's a metaparam that might describe how