On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Nick Fagerlund < nick.fagerl...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:02:55 AM UTC-7, Jon Schewe wrote: >> >> >> Am I getting this right that instead of just leaving the functionality in >> puppet I should now call out to another application to have node-specific >> variables? This seems like a step in the wrong direction. It's really nice >> that in puppet 2.6 I've been able to keep all of my configuration in my >> nodes.pp file. >> >> No no no! Don't worry. I'm actually in the process of codifying this for > the reference docs right now, but here are the "new" scoping rules: > > Local scope -> inherited scope (as created by the "inherits" keyword; > these should remain fairly rare) -> node scope -> top scope > > Node scope is staying a thing, because it has to for the time being. > > - It's unfortunately anonymous, so there's no way to address it directly. > You have to use the variable's short name to get there. > - But you can most assuredly get there. > - However, some versions in the 2.7.x series issue a false warning when > you're trying to get to node scope. more recent versions should have that > fixed. > > Did that clear things up? > > > So what I'm currently doing is perfectly valid and should continue to work with 2.8, I've just got a version that's giving me extra warnings. Correct? -- Jon Schewe | http://mtu.net/~jpschewe -- 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.
