No worries. I'm enjoying the discussion. On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 7:01:47 AM UTC-7, jcbollinger wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 15, 2012 4:32:28 PM UTC-5, Ellison Marks wrote: >> >> I don't intend to use parametrized declarations(Right now I'm simply >> using hiera_include in the default node for everything and loving it). I do >> however, very much like the convenience of the new syntax. In addition, my >> use case for default values in the puppet backend that shipped with the >> class wasn't terribly complex, so simply including a default value in the >> class itself serves my needs well. >> >> In my case, the new features are simply a more convenient way of doing >> what i was already doing(sans the array and hash functionality). >> >> > I don't see it, but that's a question of style and personal preference. > Other than the effort required to get from here to there, there is nothing > inherently negative about your plan as you describe it. Please don't take > my comments as personal criticism. > > I truly am interested in whether there are advantages to class > parametrization that may not be evident to me, but I used your comments > mostly as a springboard for the discussion that now ensues. Regulars > around here know that I am a longtime critic of Puppet's parametrized class > design. It is better in Puppet 3 -- a lot better, in fact -- but there are > still some significant issues. I consider it a community service to > publicize those issues, both to help people avoid tripping over them and to > keep PL's feet to the fire. > > > 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/-/e23mEImUQ0oJ. 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.
