Excerpts from Alex Schultz's message of 2015-09-16 09:53:10 -0700: > Hey puppet folks, > > Based on the meeting yesterday[0], I had proposed creating a parser > function called is_service_default[1] to validate if a variable matched our > agreed upon value of '<SERVICE DEFAULT>'. This got me thinking about how > can we maybe not use the arbitrary string throughout the puppet that can > not easily be validated. So I tested creating another puppet function > named service_default[2] to replace the use of '<SERVICE DEFAULT>' > throughout all the puppet modules. My tests seemed to indicate that you > can use a parser function as parameter default for classes. > > I wanted to send a note to gather comments around the second function. > When we originally discussed what to use to designate for a service's > default configuration, I really didn't like using an arbitrary string since > it's hard to parse and validate. I think leveraging a function might be > better since it is something that can be validated via tests and a syntax > checker. Thoughts?
I'm confused. Why aren't you omitting the configuration option from the file if you want to use the default? Isn't that what undef is for? __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
