On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Michael DeHaan <mich...@reductivelabs.com>wrote:
> > that are very much procedural while Puppet manifest are more > > useful on a description of required software level. > > Sort of. > > The long story is that we don't have a really native feeling way to > model multinode deployments and workflow now, but we can think of > modeling it based on a set of checkpoint conditions. > > On a complete pipe-dream, "I'm not the one with the skills to do this" comment, I think it would be great to extend the Puppet language toward "site" configurations. As exported resources, but more. If you could define, say, an "application" resource that is not on a node but on several nodes, that would model the application - this app is this and this running on those 2 servers who are on loadbalancing and this and that on those other 2, and the parts on the webservers requires the parts on the appservers that requires the parts on the database servers...dont know at what level could it be modeled to be flexible enough and not one size "deploy" model for all, but the idea would be to make it like Puppet goes from "let me script this" to "let me describe how it should be", with you describing your application structucture and relationships and such. -- ------------------------------ Jesús Couto F. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-us...@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.
