On 06/11/2011 01:06 PM, Nan Liu wrote:
I'm not sure if I captured the intention well, essentially still want a way to coarsely organize classes, however without adding any dependency requirement. So deploy user accounts/customization after application deployment, however still proceed with user deployment even if there was any issues with the application deployment.
If you are not expressing dependency, then where is the need for organizing the classes? Couldn't you just as well run the classes in alphabetical order? We already have Class[ foo ] -> Class[ baz ] Which implies a topological sort. But it fails to capture that one set of classes must succeed before another set can be attempted. I think stages should express that kind of boundary, and not just be another expression of sequencing. Are you perhaps talking about a rendezvous, where multiple sequences of stages all have to complete before the rendezvous will unblock? a -> b -> c -> g d -> f -> c With c as a rendezvous d and f can complete even if a stalls. Nothing in c or g will run until all of [ a b d f ] complete. In my thinking this was implicit in enforcement. But maybe rendezvous is a more descriptive term. -- vagn -- 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.
