I think Aaron lays out the options pretty well. This issue has been hanging fire for quite a while, and it would be nice to come to a decision about what our path forward is.
Who else cares about this? What do you think? r 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. -- 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.
