On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Aaron Grewell <aaron.grew...@gmail.com>wrote:
> We've looked at two different possibilities thus far: > > 1) Make all resource types hash-aware. This is what I was originally > asking for. It would mean changing the way resources are declared so that > in the case of a hash their representation of $name was appropriate for use > with defines and virtuals. This could either be done by requiring the hash > to have a 'name' key and using that or by creating a metaparameter like > hash_key so it could be user-specified. The hash itself would need to be > passed to the resource in the same way as $name but with a different > identifier so that its keys could be accessed inside the resource as e.g. > $data[key]. > > The upside of this is that it should work universally and conceptually > match the rest of Puppet, the downsides I see so far are that its > implementation might well be intrusive and it might also add to the DSL. > > 2) Create a hash -> resource transformation function. If I understood John > correctly this is what he was in favor of. > > The upside of this is it should be less intrusive, easier to implement, and > require no DSL changes. The downside is that it still makes hashes special > and requires separate handling of them. 2.7.x merged the older "hash2resource" function as "create_resource" https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/blob/2.7.x/lib/puppet/parser/functions/create_resources.rb I'm actually not sure where the definitive home for hash2resource is, perhaps someone else will chime in. > > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Randall Hansen <rand...@puppetlabs.com>wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Aaron Grewell <aaron.grew...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > All I'm saying is that I think hashes should be first-class citizens in >> > Puppet and right now they're not. >> >> I agree with that as a high-level problem statement, but to make >> progress we need to put legs on it. John's got one possibility: a >> new built-in function. I agree with him that the DSL is too crufty, >> but I don't think this needs to add to it if done well. >> >> Here's another possibility, I think: >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users/browse_thread/thread/162d86ed39d6d8da >> >> What do you think? I must admit not to understand all the details. >> As D. UX I mostly try to squeeze ideas out of other people. :) I'll >> try to keep the conversation going and help us coalesce around the >> details, but I'll need help from people who really have skin in the >> game. >> >> Thanks, >> >> r >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> > -- > 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. > -- Nigel Kersten Product, Puppet Labs @nigelkersten -- 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.
