+1 for using one resource type with different parameters.
On 04/19/2011 10:22 PM, Forrie wrote: > +1 here for this. > > Having said that, I think mingling the setting in there with the two > basic types would be essential to keep this simple. All the heavy > lifting should go on automatically in the background. A sysadmin > should only have to change the mount to "rw" or "ro" and have Puppet > do the right thing. As difficult as that may be to implement :-) > > > > On Mar 22, 4:19 pm, Thomas Bellman <bell...@nsc.liu.se> wrote: >> Nigel Kersten wrote: >>> TL;DR Themountprovider has used a mish-mash of checkingfstaband >>> actualmountstate to determine state. A possible solution we're >>> looking at is splitting into two types, one that manages /etc/fstab >>> (or /etc/filesystem on other OSes), and one that manages actualmount >>> state. >> >> [Details elided] >> >> Two separate types is the obviously correct way. Just like we >> have two separate types for specifying whether a service should >> be started at boot and for whether it should be running right >> now. And just like we have nine separate types for specifying >> file type, owner, group, mode, content and SElinux parameters. >> >> ... >> >> Hey wait, we don't! We only have one service type and one file >> type, with multiple properties. Maybe there is some good reason >> for having it like that. Perhaps like not requiring users to >> repeat the same things (service name; file path;mount-point and >> device) for things that very, very often go together. >> >> So, no, I think splitting themounttype into two types would be >> a bad choice. >> >> Splitting the 'ensure' parameter of themounttype into two, on >> the other hand, I think is a very good idea. >> >> The nice way to transition would be to have two entirely new >> parameters, let's provisionally call them 'mount_state' and >> 'fstab_state', and in 2.7 have the 'ensure' parameter translated >> into those two new parameters with a warning about that syntax >> being deprecated, and then in 2.8 remove the 'ensure' parameter >> entirely. (I actually dislike the names I propose above; they >> are just examples for the sake of discussing the principle.) >> >> /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.
