Nicolas Szalay wrote: > ----- "Al @ Lab42" <lab42...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > | > I think the modules should be written so that they assume they are > | > named after what they are in forge. > | > | I don't think this is a good idea, if I've understood it fully. > | > | IHMO, modules in the forge should be, in the long term, interoperable > | and possible interchangeable. > | > | I should "include apache" in my nodes, as always, whatever the apache > | module is, and I think it's really a bad thing to be have something > | like "include example42-apache" and then be forced to change that on > | all my nodes (and all the references/requires to it) when I want to > | switch to the apache module of someone else. > | > | But most of all, I agree with what David says about autoloading. > | I find absurd the idea of having classes called with the name of the > | author and not the sole name of the application.
This is the model we're going for ... The next update will address this issue and specify that module is called by the sole name of the application/function. Regards James Turnbull -- 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.
