On Apr 20, 8:13 am, Felix Frank <felix.fr...@alumni.tu-berlin.de>
wrote:
> On 04/20/2011 03:17 AM, Ben Hughes wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 04:24:18AM -0700, Tim Coote wrote:
>
> >> Is there a canonical definition of the service type abstraction, or is
> >> the definition just how the implementation behaves?
>
> > What happens when you do:
>
> > $ puppet resource service xinetd
>
> > That should hopefully give you the output for that.
>
> > Resource isn't, say, a system profiling tool. It's more an interface to
> > resources you have. And while some will give you all the information you
> > may want ('user' for example), not all of them can.
>
> Also note that under the puppet paradigm, a "service" is not something
> reachable via network (as in "services provided through xinetd"), but
> can be any process that is maintained by use of an init-script.
>
> Regards,
> FelixHi Felix Any service must surely have an access point (either listening on a port on some IP address, even if it's just localhost), or some other IPC mechanism, otherwise it cannot provide a technical service to any consumer. Surely the abstraction cannot relate to init-scripts, otherwise there would be no mapping to a Windows machine (or even BSD), and I'd need a totally parallel set of manifests for wintel. That's not abstraction. The problem with there not being a description of how the software should behave (either documentation or a set of tests), is that if something changes behaviour between releases, there's a large migration problem for the user. Tim -- 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.
