On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:23:14 AM UTC-5, R.I. Pienaar wrote: > > its a > shame we even have to come up with a style for working around problems > in something as key as class paramaterization. >
I think it's a shame that prevailing opinion holds class parametrization to be a key feature. There continue to be problems with it largely because it is conceptually inconsistent with Puppet's model for classes (specifically, with their singleton nature). Because Puppet cannot accept inconsistent declarations of a class, Puppet DSL should not facilitate users writing such declarations into their manifests. Indeed, isn't that much the same logic PL used in deciding to remove dynamic scoping? Here's one solution: keep parametrized classes themselves, but deprecate and eventually remove the parametrized-class declaration syntax. That would leave class parameters as formalized declarations of external data used by classes, while removing the possibility of inconsistent class declarations. It would also pull back from the confusing effort to make classes appear to be resources when in fact they are not (for example, create_resources() won't "create" classes). 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/-/_jiSN1JwQvMJ. 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.
