Nigel Kersten wrote:
How would people feel about at least splitting out these into their own types?
* symlinks
* recursive file copies
The intersection of files and directories isn't that big a deal, but
we could split out directories too if we wanted.
A tentative -1 from me. I haven't had any problems myself with the
file type, and I haven't heard anyone of my colleagues complaining
either. In Unix, files are files are files, whether they happen to
be plain files, directories, symlinks, device nodes or named pipes.
But mostly I think we need a full specification to judge on. There
are many cases and interactions that needs to be considered, and it
isn't obvious that either way is really better without a detailed
description of how they will work and interact with each other.
My gut feeling, though, is that you will find just as many edge
cases and complexities if you split it into multiple types, just
that they will then be spread over several *interacting* types.
/Bellman
--
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.
