----- "Jeff McCune" <j...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:07 PM, R.I.Pienaar <r...@devco.net> wro> > > ----- "Jeff McCune" <j...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: > > > >> I make the recommendation that classes should include the classes > >> they depend on, but this appears to be problematic if the class > doing the > >> include sets resource defaults, particularity when setting a > >> relationship in a default like require, before, subscribe and > notify. > >> This opens up the door for resource cycles. > > > > recommendations are fine, but that is a lot of convention and best > > practice something that is very hard to pass on to new people, its > hard > > to audit and its hard to predict. And ones established as a best > practise > > that causes problems when ignored also lulls one into a false sense > of > > safety. > > Agreed. As you mentioned this has been on my mind for quite a while > now. The unpredictability of scope when a class is included multiple > times has been pushed to front of my mind since it's been such a > common point of confusion when talking with many people, both new and > experienced. > > > best avoided, it should do the right thing by default. > > Agreed. This begs the question; what is the "right thing" puppet > should be doing by default? > > >> Perhaps it might be useful to set resource defaults only for the > >> local scope, and not for any classes which get included into this > scope. > >> How do you feel about this change to the language? > > > > I've thought about this problem before and thought the fact that > puppet > > did not behave in this way was a bug, so my vote is with this :) > > Do you think resource defaults should default to the local scope if > the default isn't declared in the top or node scope?
I had not considered the global scope defaults, I dont use them cos I like the side effect of a manifest to be clear when looking at a single pp file. I'd only ever set a default that I expect to be localized to the class its in. but thats just me as Nigel points out :) > Perhaps it would be sufficient to prevent "include" from granting > access to the local scope and instead limit scope to namespaces and > class inheritance? > > I'm not too familiar with the code inside of puppet at this level, so > it may be far more sensible to just introduce a "local" keyword to > declare resource defaults in the local scope only, but I'm not sure > this wouldn't satisfy the "behave by default" goal we have. > I guess so, it sounds all a bit magic really. If this doable then kewl, otherwise some new syntax for indicating global scoped defaults. -- 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.
