Alex Schultz wrote: >> I've been mulling this over the last several days and I just can't >> accept an entire ruby function which would be ran for every parameter >> with the desired static value of "<SERVICE DEFAULT>" when the class is >> declared and parsed. I am not generally against using functions as a >> parameter default just not a fan in this case because running ruby just >> to return a static string seems inappropriate and not optimal. >> >> In this specific case I think the params pattern and inheritance can >> obtain us the same goals. I also find this a valid us of inheritance >> cross module namespaces but...only because all our modules must depend >> on puppet-openstacklib. >> >> http://paste.openstack.org/show/473655 >> > > Yes after thinking it over, I agree that the function for a parameter > is probably not the best route. I think going the inheritance route > is a much more established pattern and would make more sense. > > Just throwing this out there, another option could be using a fact in > puppet-openstacklib. We could create an os_service_default fact or > something named similarly that would be a static constant that could > be used for a parameter default and we could leverage it as part of > the is_service_default() function. We would still require > puppet-openstacklib be included but we wouldn't need to do all the > inherits in the classes. Just a thought. >
That is a viable option. I can't recall which versions of puppet support facts.d but if all that we support do we could even make it 100% static and just put a file on disk with the contents "servicedefault='<SERVICE DEFAULT>'. -- Cody
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
