Forum: CFEngine Help Subject: Re: Detriment to being explicit about "any::" ? Author: jgreer Link to topic: https://cfengine.com/forum/read.php?3,23421,23422#msg-23422
There's no technical reason not to do so, and I think this is a decent style rule, if for nothing more than developing good habits and readable code. Not sure whether unintended policy bleed was your main concern here, or just stylistic consistency, but risk of unintentional exposure was a concern of ours. This is basically our approach: - very commonly-shared policy (primarily stuff we apply to any, or to OS-specific hard classes - very few soft classes here) goes in a "main" bundle. - main also contains a methods: section with "usebundle" promises protected by soft classes (for the Drupal class, use the Drupal bundle; for Nagios, use the Nagios bundle, etc.) - all promises in app/project specific bundles are further protected by their related soft classes, to protect against the scenario in which a "usebundle" promise in main accidentally gets applied to the wrong class by virtue of deleting/transposing class protections I'm a huge fan of using 'methods' promises for this kind of safety - on top of that, this allows your bundlesequence to be very short and sweet. Hope this helps. -Jessica _______________________________________________ Help-cfengine mailing list Help-cfengine@cfengine.org https://cfengine.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine
