On 11/14/2013 06:02 AM, Zane Bitter wrote: > On 13/11/13 01:34, Clint Byrum wrote: >> Excerpts from Angus Salkeld's message of 2013-11-12 15:22:44 -0800: >>> >IMO is should just be a template/formatted file. >>> > >> I'd prefer that we have the ability to pull in a chunk of in-line >> template >> as well. Perhaps that is the template resource, I have not thought that >> through. It is not o-k, IMO, to push things off entirely to external >> files/urls/"providers", etc. That is just cumbersome and unnecessary for >> a common case which is to deploy two things using the same base config >> with parameters having different values. >> >> Of course, for my use case of having different topologies reusing bits >> of config, it is perfect to have the reusable bits split into different >> files. > > So, if I understand Angus's get_file suggestion correctly, it parses > out to the equivalent of inlining the file's contents. So if you > implement the resource as accepting inline data and add in get_file, > then you get: > a) Composability, OR > b) Everything in one file > > but not both. I think that is probably sufficient, but I would be > interested in your opinion: is it essential that you be able to > compose software components defined in the same file? > > Note that the implementation of get_file would also involve > python-heatclient automagically detecting it and making sure the > relevant file is uploaded in the files section. So this shouldn't > create a lot of mental overhead for the user. > > (BTW I think I like this plan.) > Yes, and get_file is a HOT function which is only evaluated where other functions are evaluated, which is probably a good thing.
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev