After my previous post, I did some more thinking and reasearch. What do you
think about:
- using an if/else-conditional. Would that work?
- using virtual resources? would that work?
On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:17:11 PM UTC+1, Erwin Bogaard wrote:
>
> As I'm in over my head, let's supply you with (part of) the manifests in
> question:
>
> The define:
>
> define sugar::definitions_sug_wp (
> $template = 'sugar/etc/httpd/conf.d/sugar6x.conf.erb',
> $client_domain = "$title",
> $mysql_rootpwd = "$mysql_password",
> $mysql_dbname,
> $mysql_pwd,
> $sugar_admin,
> $sugar_pwd,
>
> ) {
>
> # This is for example to create the httpd.conf and the sugar-folder. So
> this has to be in both. As you can see, I parametrized the httpd-conf, so I
> can specify it in my class. Also, the ${client_domain}-variable is used
> throughout this define.
> file {
> "/etc/httpd/conf.d/sug-${client_domain}.conf":
> content => template($template),
> owner => 'root',
> group => 'root',
> mode => '0644',
> notify => Service['httpd'];
> "/var/log/sugar/${client_domain}":
> ensure => 'directory';
> }
>
>
> # The following is specific to the WordPress-installation and doesn't need
> to be applied to every machine. So this part isn't in the define 'define
> sugar::definitions_sug'.
> file {
> # Configuratie van publieke html
> "/var/www/html/${client_domain}":
> owner => 'apache',
> group => 'apache',
> mode => '0744',
> ensure => 'directory';
> # Configuratiefile WordPress
> "/var/www/html/${client_domain}/wp-config.php":
> owner => 'apache',
> group => 'apache',
> mode => '0744',
> require => File["/var/www/html/${client_domain}"],
> content => template('sugar/wordpress/wp-config.php.erb');
>
> I call both defines ('sugar::definitions_sug_wp' and 'define
> sugar::definitions_sug') in the following class:
> class sugar::instances {
>
> sugar::definitions_sug {
> # SugarCRM - ECM2
> 'node1':
> mysql_dbname => 'dbname1',
> mysql_pwd => 'password1';
>
> sugar::definitions_sug_wp {
> 'node2':
> sugar_admin => 'text1',
> sugar_pwd => 'password2',
> mysql_dbname => 'dbname2',
> mysql_pwd => 'password3';
>
> I include this class on one node to get several sugar-only vhosts and
> several sugar+wordpress-nodes on that node.
>
> Hope this helps you explain things to me!
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 5, 2012 3:41:37 PM UTC+1, jcbollinger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 5, 2012 3:48:58 AM UTC-6, Erwin Bogaard wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks again for you reply, but it seems like you don't fully understand
>>> what I'm having problems with. So I'll try to clarify it a little more:
>>> 1. The current way of using two defines is working flawlessly. So I (at
>>> least partly) understand the concepts surrounding those.
>>> 2. Because I have two types of machines: some with just sugar and some
>>> with sugar and wordpress, I now use two defines that overlap in part
>>> (define1 contains all kinds of info about creating sugar db + unpacking
>>> tar, etc, while define2 contains all the sugar info of define1 + stuff
>>> about creating a wordpress db + unpacking wp tar, etc), this means editing
>>> two files when I change something in the sugar define. As this can lead to
>>> differing configurations because of editing errors (and always twice the
>>> work), I would like to be able to split the defines up, so I can call
>>> define1 (sugar) on all machines and define1 (sugar) and sefine 2
>>> (wordpress) on the other machines.
>>> 3. Some of the variables are shared, for example the mysqld_pwd is used
>>> twice, and I add a different suffix for sugar and wordpress to get two
>>> databases. For the httpd-configuration, I specify a different template,
>>> which is easy to to with defines. So all instances have unique resources,
>>> hence the choice for defines, not classes.
>>>
>>> Does this help you help me?
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, not really. You have been relatively clear about what you are trying
>> to accomplish, but I don't understand what is preventing you from
>> accomplishing it. Perhaps that means you're stumbling over something that
>> seems trivial to me. For example, if the real question is how to share
>> data between two or more defined types, then you have at least three
>> choices:
>>
>> 1. Define the data in a class, and have each definition reference the
>> class variables instead of taking that data in the form of parameters.
>> 2. Externalize the data (e.g. into an Hiera data store), and have
>> each definition reference the needed values by the same fixed key.
>> 3. Record the data in global variables, and have each definition
>> reference the global values. (I wouldn't recommend this one except as a
>> temporary hack.)
>>
>> If that doesn't help then perhaps you should try reducing the problem to
>> the simplest possible example that captures the issue. Often such an
>> exercise will itself help you work out the problem, but if it doesn't then
>> we can be a lot more helpful to you with actual (simple) manifests to
>> critique.
>>
>>
>> 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/-/2OhOSSmuKl8J.
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.
