On Jul 17, 2012, at 6:30 AM, jcbollinger wrote: > Apparently so. I don't want to drag this thread off into a rehash of the > constraints idea, but one of the central ideas is that it allows cooperative > specification of resource properties. Constraints -- as I envision them -- > are not a dynamic validation feature, but rather an indirect, deferred > declaration feature. In many cases, explicit resource declarations could be > replaced by one or more constraints on the same resource, which could appear > anywhere in the manifest set. Everything gets resolved after all resources > are compiled.
Sounds like treating hiera data as virtualized to me (and sounds like a functional way to deal with the issues we are discussing). How would you implement this today? > I'll say no more about that here, but if anyone wants to discuss it further > then I'd be likely to respond to a new thread on that topic. Seems like a thread that you should name, unless you want a thread labelled "Ask John" … ;-) -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. -- 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.
