On Oct 30, 4:45 pm, Nigel Kersten <ni...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: > http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/5158 > > ----------------------- Ticket description --------------- > > We have four main ways we can specify file content in a file resource. > > The source parameter > The content parameter > The file function > The template function > > These behave inconsistently in the following ways. > > The source parameter, file function and template function all can take > an array. For source/file, the first file that exists will be used. > For the template function, we concatenate the templates instead. > > The file function takes fully qualified paths only. The template > function takes fully qualified paths, or dereferences relative paths > as follows. ‘foo/bar.erb’ –> modules/foo/templates/bar.erb > > The latter problem is relatively easily solved, particularly if we > implement #4885 > > We are going to have to break backwards compatibility to solve the > first problem however. > > My feeling is that more people make use of the multi-select logic in > the source parameter/file function than make use of the concatenation > of the template function. > ----------------------- > > I'm opening this up for discussion here on the user list as we need to > all agree whether it's worth chasing consistency here at the cost of > breaking backwards compatibility. > > It appears that people use both the concatenation and multi-select > logic. How can we provide both bits of functionality for all these > methods? > > Here's a terrible suggestion that hopefully inspires a better one. > An array indicates multi-select logic, separation with a colon means > concatenate. > > 1a. Use the first source that exists. > > file { "/tmp/somefile": > source => ["puppet:///modules/foo/somefile.$hostname", > "puppet:///modules/foo/somefile.default",] > > } > > file { "/tmp/somefile": > content => template("foo/somefile.$hostname.erb", > "foo/somefile.default.erb"), > > } > > 1b. Concatenate multiple objects > > file { "/tmp/somefile": > source => > "puppet:///modules/foo/somefile.$hostname:puppet:///modules/foo/somefile.default", > > } > > file { "/tmp/somefile": > content => template("foo/somefile.$hostname.erb:foo/somefile.default.erb"), > > } > > Is this so unsatisfactory that we need to add more parameters? What if > we pluralized for the concatenation with "sources" and "contents" ? > > 2b. New parameter for concatenation. > > file { "/tmp/somefile": > sources => ["puppet:///modules/foo/somefile.$hostname", > "puppet:///modules/foo/somefile.default",] > > } > > file { "/tmp/somefile": > contents => [template("foo/somefile.$hostname.erb", > template("foo/somefile.default.erb")], > > }
IMHO both the alternatives are OK, and, referring to the post's followups, I prefer something like sources to source_concat and would avoid the use of a "concatenate" boolean parameter to influence the behaviour of another parameter (source/content): better to have the information of how files are provided in a single parameter. But basically it's just a matter of aestetics. > Alternatively, do we really need to fix this? I think we do, as > consistency matters a lot to me, but maybe I'm on my own here Not at all, you're right, this has to be fixed. My c Al -- 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.
