It’s not wrong, but it’s order dependent. Assuming the two or more resource
definitions have some variance, you cannot guarantee the resource will be
realized as you intend. This you have to be very careful to not have
conflicting definitions that could flip flop over time or outright
conflict.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:38 PM Johan Fleury <jfle...@arcaik.net> wrote:
> Le 17/10/2017 à 08:59, jcbollinger a écrit :
> > Nothing has changed with `ensure_resource()`. The problem is not its
> > implementation details, but rather the nature of the usage modes the
> > function is *designed* to support. The whole idea of it is flawed. We
> can
> > reprise that discussion if you like, but you already have this very
> thread
> > and others to which it links from which you can review some of the
> > discussions that we have had before.
> >
>
> What is the problem with ensure_resource?
>
> I use it every time I have to write something like:
>
> ```
> if !defined(Foo['bar']) {
> foo { 'bar': }
> }
> ```
>
> Am I doing it wrong?
>
> --
> Johan Fleury
> PGP Key ID : 0x5D404386805E56E6
>
> --
> 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/e7ecdc15-49bc-b6a6-ed64-795c71cca811%40arcaik.net
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
Rob Nelson
--
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/CAC76iT9g7HZdb3Mn%3DjfvJeSLeeQxULMFKdqKs2nxsr7ei6vNYg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
