On Jan 17, 1:12 pm, Felix Frank <felix.fr...@alumni.tu-berlin.de>
wrote:
[snip]
Hi Frank,
> I disbelieve that's how you are supposed to use this plusignment syntax.
> This is how I'm used to seeing it:
>
> class puppet::config {
> file { "foo": notify => Service["bar"] }
>
> }
>
> class puppet::config::server inherits puppet::config {
> File["foo"] { notify +> Service["baz"] }
>
> }
I effectively have that - removing some of the extra bits I have:
class puppet::config {
...
file {
"/etc/puppet/puppet.conf":
content => template("puppet/puppet.conf"),
}
}
then overridden here:
class puppetserver::config inherits puppet::config{
...
File["/etc/puppet/puppet.conf"] {
content => template("puppet/puppet.conf","puppetserver/
puppet.conf"),
notify +> Service["puppetserver"],
}
}
> Also note that resource defaults become mute if you assign *any*
> parameter value in an actual instance declaration. So
>
> File { notify => Service["foo"] }
> file { "baz": notify +> Service["bar"] }
>
> doesn't mean "enhance the default by Service["bar"]", but instead it
> means "replace the default by whatever was set *for this very file* plus
> Service["bar"]".
>
> As an aside, I try and steer clear of plusignment whenever it's possible.
Ah, interesting - I hadn't appreciated that, it seems a bit of a shame
in some ways. That explains what I'm seeing.
One reason for the slight oddness here and setting defaults was to all
a more standardised approach in how we write modules - to avoid
missing notifies (or conversely too many).
Thanks,
Adrian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@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.
