On 02/18/2011 11:32 AM, Daniel Pittman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:16, Russell Jackson <r...@csub.edu> wrote: >> On 02/15/2011 05:37 PM, James Louis wrote: >> >>> in spite of this not actually being a "push" mechanism if it walks like >>> a duck. it would be nice if the documentation and previous discussions >>> on this were more clear or even better if it's not a "push" then the it >>> should be "redefined" within puppet world. IMHO >> >> Actually, almost anything that is referred to as "push" is usually >> implemented as some sort of pull trigged via a notification mechanism. > > That seems an odd claim in general, but whatever. In the specific > case of puppet we have a prototype for a "static compiler" that we are > working on internally. The goal is to allow a set of files, catalog > included, to be pushed out from the central server to the client, with > no loss of fidelity or control. > > So, we are sympathetic to the requirement for a genuine push solution > (which is actually push), and are working on solutions to the problem. > They don't even have a roadmap date yet, though, I fear. :) >
Well, let look at "push" email in IMAP for example. The client connects to the server and issues the IDLE command and waits for the server to send a notification via an EXISTS response that a mailbox has new mail. The client then "pulls" the email from the server the usual way. The server doesn't ever actually "push" email to the client, but it's still referred to as "push" email. -- Russell A Jackson <r...@csub.edu> Network Analyst California State University, Bakersfield -- 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.
