On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 7:40 AM, jcbollinger <john.bollin...@stjude.org>wrote:
> > > On Dec 24 2010, 8:41 am, Daniel Piddock <dgp-g...@corefiling.co.uk> > wrote: > > I've done a bit of poking around the issue tracker. Issue 4473 > > http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/4473 appears to be the ticket > > related to this. > > No, I don't think it is. Issue 4473 is about resolving parent class > names in a class inheritance scenario. Puppet considers the namespace > of the class being defined when it attempts to resolve the parent > class name, and I agree with the submitter of that report that doing > so is a bit surprising. It can and does work, however. > > On the other hand, resolving class names appearing within the body of > a class, as we're discussing here, is an altogether different > question. I don't think there is an open issue requesting the kind of > name resolution changes you seem to want. It makes sense to consider > namespaces from innermost to outermost, as Puppet does. Even issue > 4473 only suggests omitting the current class's namespace from those > searched for the parent class, not changing the order of the > namespaces that *are* searched. > > > Unfortunately it looks like puppeteers expect > this > > unusual name resolution order, if they ever knowingly stumble upon it > > (e.g. 4483, 4472). > > Indeed, and they should. Relative names should be resolved against > the closest namespace first, against the most distant (relevant) > namespace last. It's more intuitive, more modular, and more > consistent with programming languages that support name shadowing. > Daniel, can you provide examples where relative names are resolved in the order you expected? I may lack perspective here, but this is how I would have expected things to work, and wouldn't have characterized it as "unusual". > > > Either I need to hack around this problem carefully > > or wait a long time for the next major release, if puppetlabs decide to > > follow the OO programming crowd. > > I recognize that this caught you by surprise, and that it presents an > immediate problem for you. I do not agree that it is a "problem" in > the sense that Puppet's behavior in this regard is unreasonable or > even unusual, however. Naturally, you do need to pay attention to > name resolution as you design and write your manifests, but that would > be equally or even moreso the case if Puppet's name resolution order > were changed. > > > John > > -- > 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<puppet-users%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > > -- 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.
