On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 19:21, Nigel Kersten <ni...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Dan Bode <d...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Could we add the ability to query whether a given resource has >>>> been realized or not? How much of an ordering problem is this? >>>> Package <| state == virtual |> >>>> Package <| state == real |> >> >> Sounds reasonable, I have actually tried something like this before hoping >> it would work. (the use case was that I wanted to specify some dependency >> for all resources of a given type that I was realizing) > > I'm curious how many people are actually using this syntax for resource > realization rather than the realize() function? > Generally when I realize resources, I'm doing so for very specific > resources, not large collections of resources. > Should we be conflating querying/collecting and realizing like this at all?
I would very, very strongly like to see this separated, because one of my longer term goals is to see better support for doing things with information about collections, not just including random resources with them. So, separating out the two concepts and having a mechanism for realise() to meet a collection? Great. I fully support this. Daniel My trivial use case for doing things with collections is: give me the fqdn of every machine tagged "application server for X" on my load balancer. Storeconfigs, or mcollective, or something more dynamic is an implementation detail under that use case. -- ⎋ Puppet Labs Developer – http://puppetlabs.com ✉ Daniel Pittman <dan...@puppetlabs.com> ✆ Contact me via gtalk, email, or phone: +1 (877) 575-9775 ♲ Made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons -- 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.