On 11/07/2014 03:40 PM, jcbollinger wrote:
> If you need to support multiple some::fun_instances, with some but not
> all sharing any given $sname (i.e. a many to many relationship), then
> you're going to need to make deeper changes.
Yeah.
FWIW, this is the one use case that worries me most when thinking about
patterns to eliminate the defined() horror.
define something::specific($group) {
file { "/things/$group/$name": }
if !defined( File["/things/$group"] ) {
file { "/things/$group": ensure => directory }
}
}
I.e., a defined type of which some but not all instances depend on a
shared resource. Constraints could ensure a consistent catalog, but how
can the dependency be automatically satisfied without defined() or
ensure_resource()?
I'm toying with ideas for allowing multiple declarations of the same
resource. That will pose other exiting issues, but might be the least
painful way.
Sorry for derailing, I just wanted to note that here ere I forget.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-users/545D03DD.10102%40alumni.tu-berlin.de.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
