On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 5:23 AM, Daniel Pittman <dan...@rimspace.net> wrote:
> Matthew Macdonald-Wallace <li...@truthisfreedom.org.uk> writes:
>> On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 00:44 -0700, Yushu Yao wrote:
>>
>>> Any reason you can't use facter the command line?
>>> E.g. call in python commands.getstatusoutput("facter")
>>
>> Because it's a dirty hack? ;)
>
> Internally facter does a lot of the same, FWIW. ;)Honestly, the vast majority of Facter facts are just shelling out underneath as Daniel said. I can imagine a magical land where we have native Ruby bindings for everything we currently shell out for, but it's not here yet... I do like the idea of community maintained wrappers around Facter to at least make coding against Facter in other languages easier, as it really won't be that much work. > I think what you probably want is 'facter --yaml', which emits the data in a > format easily consumed by other applications. Wrap, or cache, or process that > from your Python library and you have a nice, language independent way to get > that data. > > Which is essentially what you want, right? I think so. You'll want to work out how to simulate the '-p/--puppet' option, but otherwise it's all just going to be yaml parsing. I see Matthew's concerns about security, but I'd argue you simply wouldn't take input that gets used in actual commands. Facter doesn't do this, and a wrapper script wouldn't either. -- 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.
