On Monday, December 22, 2014 11:11:24 AM UTC-6, John Bollinger wrote:
> > I went looking for holes to poke in this approach, and didn't find any. > Having just posted that, I thought of this: use of a Transition resource makes sense only if all the 'prior_to' resources have a 'before' relationship with the final state of the transitioned resource, so in the event that the transitional state is successfully applied, but one or more of the 'prior_to' resources fails, the final state of the transitioned resource normally will not be applied. I think I'd place that in the "nothing ventured, nothing gained" category, though. That such a risk exists should certainly be documented, but it's no reason to nix the idea. If such a risk is intolerable for some particular resource then no transitional state should be modeled for it. A full-blown type and provider may be the only viable solution in such a case. John -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/e5d5c40a-7d33-4b62-8e1b-bf07bcbdd7d5%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
