On 12/02/16 10:06, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 22:47:23 -0800 (PST) Mike Weilgart
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> MW> I posit that it would be *less* surprising and easier to learn
> (and to MW> debug!) if CFEngine simply evaluated promises *in the
> sequence they are MW> specified* in a bundle, unless overridden
> with "depends_on" attributes.
> 
> Regarding the convergence model, I proposed a simple way to
> provide ordered evaluation with today's core:
> 
> https://tracker.mender.io/browse/CFE-2399?focusedCommentId=73474&page=
com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment
-73474
>
>  The nice part in that proposal is that if we provide a way to
> "rank" promises, then evaluation in the order as written would
> simply use `rank=$(current_linenumber"` for every promise.
> 
> MW> And actually, considering the great number of "isvariable()"
> calls I have MW> had to add in a single bundle to ensure that
> production data didn't get MW> polluted with unresolved variables,
> I think that passing unresolved MW> variables as-is is a *serious*
> misfeature.  This is about the only "magic MW> ordering" I would
> personally support: skip any promise that makes reference MW> to an
> unresolved variable (just like most CFEngine function calls already
>  MW> do.)
> 
> If you look back in the cfengine-devel archives, William Orr did
> work last year on a patch along those lines. I don't know what
> happened with it.

Still listening :-)

I have the early progress on it, though it's still very rough. At this
point, since I've switched jobs at LinkedIn, I no longer have access
to the CFE infrastructure or the time to work on it on hours.

I don't realistically have time to get a substantial amount of time
done on it near term, but I can show what I had before I had to put it
down.

> 
> I personally would prefer all evaluation to be tunable per bundle 
> definition *and* per bundle call. Different contexts require
> different techniques.
> 
> For example, you don't want independent security measures to stop 
> working because of a shell error somewhere in one of them. But you
> do want application deployment to abort if the port number is not
> defined.
> 
> Ted
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"dev-cfengine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dev-cfengine/8d210b1c-d234-a7d3-756d-af363e0641fe%40worrbase.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to