I'm with Luke on the whole Order-of-operations thing he had posted on 
his blog at some point (I think in the history of puppet). I just think 
it's a better design, and one of the main reasons why I didn't choose 
cfengine to whip my inherited infrastructure into line. May have been 
easier to start from scratch from the chef's dev POV, but the users of 
cfg mgmt software are ops engs for the most part like me, and IDK about 
the rest of you guys/gals who are users, but I seriously cannot maintain 
order of operations that way... without losing my tiny bit of sanity 
that I have left.

Michael Robinson wrote:
>> I have the same confusion, but the initial publication of Chef was  
>> made with many claims that it was just easier for them to start again  
>> than to try to understand Puppet's code base or to try to participate  
>> as developers.  Of course, this is a development truism: It's *always*  
>> easier to start from scratch, it's just not not always better.
>>     
>
> AFAICT, and without having spent a lot of time investigating, Chef has
> a vastly different set of requirements.  Chef implements:
>
> 1. a system that is essentially a Ruby library, rather than a stand
> alone language; and
>
> 2. has a fixed evaluation order, a la cfengine, rather than relying on
> declared dependencies and a topological sort of the dependency graph.
> (ie, the system evaluates recipes in order of declaration, rather than
> dependency order)
>
> Either would seem to make the system rather different to Puppet,
> sufficiently so that they may indeed be correct that it is easier to
> start again.
>
> Michael.
>
> >
>   


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to