Forum: CFEngine Help
Subject: Re: CFEngine Help: Bundle meta data
Author: sauer
Link to topic: https://cfengine.com/forum/read.php?3,25277,25300#msg-25300
Rather than using a reserved name, why not a reserved namespace? If you define
a namespace using a current reserved word, then you could
On 16/03/2012 08:29, no-re...@cfengine.com wrote:
> Forum: CFEngine Help
> Subject: Re: CFEngine Help: Bundle meta data
> Author: mark
> Link to topic: https://cfengine.com/forum/read.php?3,25271,25289#msg-25289
>
> Yes I also considered this prefix idea to be a possibil
On 03/15/2012 05:01 PM, Brian Bennett wrote:
Are there already existing reserved local variable names? I don't know of any
and I'd be resistant to starting this trend just for versioning.
Yes, all these
http://www.cfengine.com/manuals/cf3-reference#Variable-context-this
Should this simply be
Forum: CFEngine Help
Subject: Re: CFEngine Help: Bundle meta data
Author: mark
Link to topic: https://cfengine.com/forum/read.php?3,25271,25289#msg-25289
Yes I also considered this prefix idea to be a possibility (rather than a
special scope).
What kind of extra attributes do you envisage? I
Forum: CFEngine Help
Subject: Re: CFEngine Help: Bundle meta data
Author: eystein
Link to topic: https://cfengine.com/forum/read.php?3,25271,25288#msg-25288
Mark,
I like the vars-alias idea, it is essentially a varibale.
We could prefix meta to the variable name to make it accessible from other
I'm of two minds here. On one hand Occam's Razor -- you can put
metadata into variables, no changes to the CFEngine framework are
required, simplest solution, we're done.
On the other hand, having a metadata promise type would highlight the
importance of metadata. Then you could make metadata ma
On 03/15/2012 02:11 PM, no-re...@cfengine.com wrote:
> Forum: CFEngine Help
> Subject: Re: CFEngine Help: Bundle meta data
> Author: mark
> Link to topic: https://cfengine.com/forum/read.php?3,25271,25283#msg-25283
>
> Yes, Eystein,
>
> I see that this is possble. Not s
Forum: CFEngine Help
Subject: Re: CFEngine Help: Bundle meta data
Author: zzamboni
Link to topic: https://cfengine.com/forum/read.php?3,25271,25285#msg-25285
I wrote my previous reply before seeing Eystein's message, and I see that our
ideas are very similar. I like it, with the addition th
This is a fascinating discussion.
Of the options that have been proposed so far, I like the metadata: promise
type the best, because it avoids any potential conflict of using reserved
variable names.
To make the promisers meaningful and to force the metadata to be associated to
the current bun
Forum: CFEngine Help
Subject: Re: CFEngine Help: Bundle meta data
Author: mark
Link to topic: https://cfengine.com/forum/read.php?3,25271,25283#msg-25283
Yes, Eystein,
I see that this is possble. Not sure whether it is a step forwards or backwards
though,
The value => association is rea
Forum: CFEngine Help
Subject: Re: CFEngine Help: Bundle meta data
Author: eystein
Link to topic: https://cfengine.com/forum/read.php?3,25271,25282#msg-25282
Erik Mouw Wrote:
---
> In my opinion it would be better to introduce an
> op
On 03/15/2012 11:01 AM, Brian Bennett wrote:
> Are there already existing reserved local variable names? I don't know
> of any and I'd be resistant to starting this trend just for versioning.
>
> Should this simply be a best practice? In other words, what exactly
> does reserving the word gain u
Are there already existing reserved local variable names? I don't know of any
and I'd be resistant to starting this trend just for versioning.
Should this simply be a best practice? In other words, what exactly does
reserving the word gain us since, as Mark said, no matter how hard you try
some
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Mark Burgess wrote:
>
> I have been thinking about the issue of metadata for bundles, e.g. such as
> author and version, and have been through a number of alternatives in my head,
> The problem I have with each of them is that they either change syntax in an
> ad
On 03/15/2012 08:02 AM, Mark Burgess wrote:
> On 03/15/2012 01:07 PM, Nick Anderson wrote:
>> On 03/15/2012 07:01 AM, Mark Burgess wrote:
>>> Thanks Eric, I had exactly the same thought. The problem with this
>>> approach is that introduces "body syntax" within a bundle, which will be
>>> confusing
On 03/15/2012 01:07 PM, Nick Anderson wrote:
> On 03/15/2012 07:01 AM, Mark Burgess wrote:
>> Thanks Eric, I had exactly the same thought. The problem with this
>> approach is that introduces "body syntax" within a bundle, which will be
>> confusing and will weaken the integrity of the language (an
On 03/15/2012 07:01 AM, Mark Burgess wrote:
>
> Thanks Eric, I had exactly the same thought. The problem with this
> approach is that introduces "body syntax" within a bundle, which will be
> confusing and will weaken the integrity of the language (and parser).
> That is my main objection to th
Thanks Eric, I had exactly the same thought. The problem with this
approach is that introduces "body syntax" within a bundle, which will be
confusing and will weaken the integrity of the language (and parser).
That is my main objection to this.
What do others think?
M
On 03/15/2012 12:19 PM,
On Mar 15, 2012, at 09:52, no-re...@cfengine.com wrote:
> I have been thinking about the issue of metadata for bundles, e.g. such as
> author and version, and have been through a number of alternatives in my head,
> The problem I have with each of them is that they either change syntax in an
> ad
Forum: CFEngine Help
Subject: Bundle meta data
Author: mark
Link to topic: https://cfengine.com/forum/read.php?3,25269,25269#msg-25269
I have been thinking about the issue of metadata for bundles, e.g. such as
author and version, and have been through a number of alternatives in my head,
The prob
20 matches
Mail list logo
