On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:08 AM, John Bollinger
wrote:
> On Thursday, September 5, 2013 4:31:07 PM UTC-5, Jeff McCune wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to a function expressing containment but not declaring the class
>>> (#3). It's the only option of the 4
An implementation of the contain function is now merged into the master
branch of puppet, if anyone wants to give it a try and see if it behaves as
expected. I named it 'contain' not 'contains', and it accepts multiple
arguments just like include.
--
You received this message because you are subs
On Thursday, September 5, 2013 4:31:07 PM UTC-5, Jeff McCune wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Luke Kanies
>
> > wrote:
>
>> +1 to a function expressing containment but not declaring the class (#3).
>> It's the only option of the 4 provided that doesn't have the side-effect
>> of a
Cool, thanks for the clarification. It does help think about the problem
more clearly.
So how about a contain() that sinply fails if it can't do what it's
supposed to do because the class isn't already in the catalog?
It really does seem like a problem that the side effect causes other
problems i
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Jeff McCune wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
>
>>
>> "'include' should defer evaluation of classes with parameters in case a
>> more specific evaluation is available"
>>
>> Right?
>>
>
> Yes, though I've been expressing it a bit differen
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
>
> "'include' should defer evaluation of classes with parameters in case a
> more specific evaluation is available"
>
> Right?
>
Yes, though I've been expressing it a bit differently. It shouldn't matter
what order I say `include foo` or `clas
On Sep 5, 2013, at 2:31 PM, Jeff McCune wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
>> +1 to a function expressing containment but not declaring the class (#3).
>> It's the only option of the 4 provided that doesn't have the side-effect of
>> adding the class to the catalog.
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Jeff McCune wrote:
>
> I mentioned a site module. Consider this example. What is the result?
>
> 1 class site::motd($template = 'site/motd') {
> 2 notify { 'motd': message => "template is $template" }
> 3 }
> 4
> 5 class goal {
> 6 notify { "site:
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
> +1 to a function expressing containment but not declaring the class (#3).
> It's the only option of the 4 provided that doesn't have the side-effect
> of adding the class to the catalog. I've run across situations where a
> module may want t
On Sep 4, 2013, at 10:00 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
> Hmm. Maybe the list of options above is incomplete, but I read the IRC
> thread differently.
>
> I read it as:
>
> If class is not included and not contained and doesn't require parameters,
> contain and include
> If included and not contain
On Sep 4, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Eric Sorenson wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
>
>> It looks like we shouldn't need to touch the catalog stuff at all to make
>> this work, so I agree. Is there a ticket out there for the catalog format
>> refactoring?
>
> We have a Roadma
On Sep 3, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
> It looks like we shouldn't need to touch the catalog stuff at all to make
> this work, so I agree. Is there a ticket out there for the catalog format
> refactoring?
We have a Roadmap JIRA issue that I've just cloned into redmine.
http://proje
On Sep 3, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Eric Sorenson wrote:
> Replies inline; I've butchered the quoting but will try to keep the
> attribution correct.
>
> [John Bollinger] Part of my premise here is that you cannot reasonably infer
> from a class declaration alone -- regardless of the form of the decl
On Sep 3, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Jeff McCune wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Eric Sorenson
> wrote:
> [Andy] Here are the possibilities:
> * resource like syntax for classes expresses containment:
> class container { class { contained: parameter => value } }
> * a function decla
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Eric Sorenson wrote:
> [Andy] Here are the possibilities:
>>
> * resource like syntax for classes expresses containment:
>>
>> class container { class { contained: parameter => value } }
>>
>> * a function declares the class *and* expresses containment
>
On 3 September 2013 15:00, Eric Sorenson wrote:
> Replies inline; I've butchered the quoting but will try to keep the
> attribution correct.
>
>
>> [Andy] Here are the possibilities:
>>
> * resource like syntax for classes expresses containment:
>>
>> class container { class { contained: p
Replies inline; I've butchered the quoting but will try to keep the
attribution correct.
[John Bollinger] Part of my premise here is that you cannot reasonably
> infer from a class declaration alone -- regardless of the form of the
> declaration -- whether its declaring class intends to contain
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 6:15:39 AM UTC-5, Sean Millichamp wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 23:50 -0700, Luke Kanies wrote:
>
> > However, I still disagree that fixing bugs should constitute a change
> > worth upping a major rev. If it's a bug, then fixing it shouldn't be
> > an incompat
On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 23:50 -0700, Luke Kanies wrote:
> However, I still disagree that fixing bugs should constitute a change
> worth upping a major rev. If it's a bug, then fixing it shouldn't be
> an incompatibility, should it?
I would argue that it has been the behavior for so long that fixin
On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:13 PM, markus wrote:
>
>> But I also don't think there's fundamentally anything *wrong* with
>> using whits, since they accurately model the notion of containment,
>> with respect to order: classes have a "start", and a "finish", and
>> there's stuff in between. It doesn't
y Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:05 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Original Message -
>>>>> > From: "Luke Kanies"
>>>>> > To: puppet-dev@go
On Aug 30, 2013, at 4:33 PM, Patrick Carlisle wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Luke Kanies wrote
> Hmm. I'm essentially positive that there was a version of this bug that was
> caused by whits cancelling out when classes were empty, but it sounds like
> that form has been fixed.
On Sep 1, 2013, at 11:32 AM, "Dustin J. Mitchell" wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
>> That implies that we can't ship it until 4.0, which would be a tragedy
>> worth fighting hard to avoid.
>
> At the risk of sounding impertinent, I think you have it backward.
> When
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
> That implies that we can't ship it until 4.0, which would be a tragedy
> worth fighting hard to avoid.
At the risk of sounding impertinent, I think you have it backward.
When a desirable feature or enhancement requires a
backward-incompatible
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 5:13 PM, markus wrote:
>
> > But I also don't think there's fundamentally anything *wrong* with
> > using whits, since they accurately model the notion of containment,
> > with respect to order: classes have a "start", and a "finish", and
> > there's stuff in between. It d
> But I also don't think there's fundamentally anything *wrong* with
> using whits, since they accurately model the notion of containment,
> with respect to order: classes have a "start", and a "finish", and
> there's stuff in between. It doesn't really feel like a hack to me.
> Ironically, they *
; > > > > From: "Luke Kanies" > > > > > (mailto:l...@puppetlabs.com)>
> > > > > > To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com (mailto:puppet-dev@googlegroups.com)
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:27:00 PM
> > > > &
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Luke Kanies wrote
>
> Hmm. I'm essentially positive that there was a version of this bug that
> was caused by whits cancelling out when classes were empty, but it sounds
> like that form has been fixed. Either that, or the first time I did a deep
> dive on this,
> From: "Luke Kanies"
>> > To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
>> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:27:00 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Anchor pattern (was Re: [Puppet-dev] Puppet 4 discussions)
>> >
>> > On Aug 29, 2013, at 12:24 PM, John Boll
On Friday, August 30, 2013 11:11:52 AM UTC-5, Andy Parker wrote:
>
>
> Here are the possibilities:
>
> * resource like syntax for classes expresses containment:
>
> class container { class { contained: parameter => value } }
>
> * a function declares the class *and* expresses containmen
, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Luke Kanies"
> > To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 6:34:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: Anchor pattern (was Re: [Puppet-dev] Puppet 4 discussions)
> >
> > On Aug 30, 2
On 30 August 2013 09:55, Luke Kanies wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2013, at 1:05 AM, "R.I.Pienaar" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "Luke Kanies"
> >> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> >> Sent: Thursda
puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
>> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:27:00 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Anchor pattern (was Re: [Puppet-dev] Puppet 4 discussions)
>> >
>> > On Aug 29, 2013, at 12:24 PM, John Bollinger > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>>
- Original Message -
> From: "Luke Kanies"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 6:34:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Anchor pattern (was Re: [Puppet-dev] Puppet 4 discussions)
>
> On Aug 30, 2013, at 9:14 AM, "R.I.Pienaar"
On Aug 30, 2013, at 1:05 AM, "R.I.Pienaar" wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Luke Kanies"
>> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:27:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: Anchor pattern (was Re: [Puppet-
On Aug 30, 2013, at 9:14 AM, "R.I.Pienaar" wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Erik Dalén"
>> To: "Puppet Developers"
>> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 5:07:46 PM
>> Subject: Re: Anchor pattern (was Re: [Puppet-
On Aug 30, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Andy Parker wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:05 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Luke Kanies"
> > To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:27:00 PM
On 30 August 2013 11:14, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Erik Dalén"
> > To: "Puppet Developers"
> > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 5:07:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: Anchor pattern (was Re: [Puppet-dev] Puppet
- Original Message -
> From: "Erik Dalén"
> To: "Puppet Developers"
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 5:07:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Anchor pattern (was Re: [Puppet-dev] Puppet 4 discussions)
>
> On 30 August 2013 09:55, Luke Kanies wrote:
>
>
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:05 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Luke Kanies"
> > To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:27:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: Anchor pattern (was Re: [Puppet-dev] Pu
- Original Message -
> From: "Luke Kanies"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 3:55:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Anchor pattern (was Re: [Puppet-dev] Puppet 4 discussions)
>
> On Aug 30, 2013, at 1:05 AM, "R.I.Pienaar"
- Original Message -
> From: "Luke Kanies"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:27:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Anchor pattern (was Re: [Puppet-dev] Puppet 4 discussions)
>
> On Aug 29, 2013, at 12:24 PM, John Bollinger
> wrote
On Aug 29, 2013, at 12:24 PM, John Bollinger wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 5:56:45 PM UTC-5, Andy Parker wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Andy Parker wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Luke Kanies wrote:
>> On
Sorry, I think you're over complicating this.
The fix should require no changes to syntax or usage; merely the cessation
of use of the anchor pattern.
Containment should continue to mean what it has for years, which is
generally class-to-resource and almost never class-to-class. This is easy
to
On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 5:56:45 PM UTC-5, Andy Parker wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Luke Kanies
>
> > wrote:
>
>> On Aug 28, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Andy Parker
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Luke Kanies
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 28, 2013, at 8:45
I just reread your email and realized that I said "no", but my final
paragraph is the real response to exactly what you asked. :)
So yes, adding the relationship can cause the order to change.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Andy Parker wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Luke Kanies w
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Andy Parker wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Luke Kanies wrote:
>
>> On Aug 28, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Andy Parker wrote:
>>
>> > * #8040 - anchor pattern. I think a solution is in sight, but it
>> did
On Aug 28, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Andy Parker wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Luke Kanies wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Andy Parker wrote:
>
> > * #8040 - anchor pattern. I think a solution is in sight, but it didn't
> > make 3.3.0 and it is looking like it might be backwards
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Luke Kanies wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Andy Parker wrote:
>
> > * #8040 - anchor pattern. I think a solution is in sight, but it
> didn't make 3.3.0 and it is looking like it might be backwards incompatible.
>
> Why would it be incompatible?
>
> Tha
On Aug 28, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Andy Parker wrote:
> * #8040 - anchor pattern. I think a solution is in sight, but it didn't
> make 3.3.0 and it is looking like it might be backwards incompatible.
Why would it be incompatible?
That implies that we can't ship it until 4.0, which would be a trage
50 matches
Mail list logo
