On Friday, August 17, 2012 2:52:42 AM UTC-5, denmat wrote:
>
>
>
> On 17/08/2012, at 17:19, Douglas Garstang <doug.g...@gmail.com<javascript:>>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:34 PM, Garrett Honeycutt
> > <gar...@puppetlabs.com <javascript:>> wrote:
> >> On 8/16/12 10:44 PM, Douglas Garstang wrote:
> >>> So, this has always puzzled me a bit. By convention, init.pp contains
> >>> one class, named the same as the module. However, what is the
> >>> convention when the module may have multiple external access points?
> >>> Say you have a module called 'syslog' which provides both a client and
> >>> a server class. I typically have used syslog::server and
> >>> syslog::client. I've ended up using this convention more than init.pp
> >>> because I don't know when I first put the class together exactly what
> >>> it's going to do. In module mymodule, rather than create init.pp with
> >>> class mymodule, I'll call it mymodule::base or something and stick it
> >>> in base.pp. Confused...
> >>>
> >>> Doug
> >>>
> >>
> >> Not all classes are meant to be directly included by nodes. A common
> >> practice would be having a module where you might have a base class,
> >> such as syslog and other sub classes, such as syslog::client and
> >> syslog::server. Class syslog would contain resources that were common
> to
> >> both syslog::client and syslog::server (ie: they both have a package
> and
> >> a config file). Both syslog::client and syslog::server might include
> (or
> >> possibly inherit) the syslog class. In this setup, a node might include
> >> syslog::server or syslog::client, but not syslog directly. When using
> >> this pattern, be sure to comment in your base class that it is not
> meant
> >> to be included directly.
> >
> > Garrett, thanks. Aware of all that, but I'm not sure you really answer
> > my question. :)
> >
> > Doug.
> >
> Well you can leave init.pp blank, ie,
> class name {
> }
>
> Then you can put whatever you like in the module's manifest dir.
>
> I tend to write 90% of modules with the following:
> name::config
> name::install
> name::service
> name::client
> name::server
>
> All of those refer to individual .pp files of course.
>
> Then something like:
> include name::server
>
>
In fact, init.pp can be entirely empty. If you have a class with the same
name as the module then the autoloader expects to find it in init.pp, but
such a class is not required as far as I know. I'm not on the most recent
Puppet at the moment, but I definitely have working modules with empty
init.pp.
If init.pp serves any essential purpose beyond its significance to the
autoloader, it seems to be simply to (redundantly) mark the directory
containing it as a module's base manifest directory.
John
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/JyTCa7XIG94J.
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.
