On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:26:15 PM UTC-5, Nan Liu wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:37 AM, jcbollinger > <john.bo...@stjude.org<javascript:>> > wrote: > > PL put a lot of effort into improving parametrized classes for Puppet 3, > and > > they are indeed better. As I have lately written, I think the result > > rescues a lot of parametrized classes that are already in use. That > doesn't > > mean that it's a good idea to write new parametrized classes even for > Puppet > > 3, however. > > I'm curious what's your perceived shortcomings in Puppet 3 with > parametrized classes with hiera lookup builtin? > > The key problem is not with the parametrized classes themselves, but with using parametrized-style class declarations. Puppet 3 still will not accept a parametrized-style class declaration except as the first declaration of that class, and that makes such declarations dangerous at best and useless at worst. Given that Puppet cannot accept inconsistent declarations of a given class, why does it make sense for the language to facilitate them? Isn't this similar in kind to the problem with dynamic scoping?
Sure, you can use 'include' everywhere instead, but then what did you need class parametrization for in the first place? We had a bit of a discussion on that question last week, actually: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/puppet-users/dICUPHn3azY . I'm not persuaded that class parametrization any longer has any value beyond backwards compatibility now that hiera is in the core. 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/-/UT-8Kb_aQkMJ. 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.
