On 12/07/13 18:04, Andy Parker wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Nan Liu <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Brice Figureau > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 03:52 -0700, Markus Burger wrote: > > We just released an internally developed puppet-networkdevice > module > > in the hope that some other folks might be interested in it :). > > > Awesome! > > > Absolutely! > > > > > > It's currently still in an early stage but should be pretty > usable for > > the basic usecases. > > > > -> https://github.com/uniak/puppet-networkdevice > > > > > I have one small request about the code. It doesn't make a huge > difference right now, but putting the amount of code that you have in > Puppet::Util increases the chance that there ends up being some sort of > collision between your module and code in puppet itself. Instead of > using Puppet::Util, I would suggest following the decision reached > in https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/14149, which would mean that > you should use PuppetX::Uniak::NetworkDevice.
And also integrate back the modifications to the fundations into core. > > ## Overview > > > > The Cisco Networkdevice Module provides a common way to manage > various > > configuration properties with Puppet and was initially based > on the > > network_device utility provided by Puppet. > > Your development is much more complete than my very limited > implementation, congrats! > > > Currently most providers, types, etc are suffixed with _ios as to > > avoid collusion with the network_device code already provided by > > puppet. > > That make sense, but you also apparently integrated some of the bits > that were in the core (I was thinking about the transport classes). > I won't speak for the core maintainers here, but that'd be great > if you > could have used what was in the core. > > What was preventing you to use the mechanisms/features that were > already > there? > Is that you wanted to modify/add things on top of that? > > So now that we have this module, is it time to remove all the cisco > stuff from the core, and leave only the base network device > mechanism > (possibly enriched by some of the functionalities this module > provides)? > > > +1, it's always harder to iterate in puppet core, and much easier to > improve as a module for these type of functionality. I would much > rather update my module than upgrade puppet for these type of > improvements. > > > I agree. If this module covers all of the existing cases and more of the > core modules, then I don't see why we shouldn't start deprecating the > core ones and promote these. Sure, but this module also contains duplication with some of the feature that are in core. I'd hate to remove all the network device stuff for core (but that's your call obviously). I'd prefer to integrate what required Markus to duplicate, instead of removing everything from the core. Does it make sense? -- Brice Figureau My Blog: http://www.masterzen.fr/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
