On Oct 17, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Brice Figureau wrote:
>> Is it worth having this syntax work on non-virtual resources, with
>> the
>> additional behaviour of it automagically realizing virtual resources?
>
> Can you explain what you mean?
> You lost me with this last sentence :-)
Right now, the query syntax will only "return" virtual resources,
which means one can only use this syntax to modify arbitrary numbers
of virtual resources.
People generally want the ability to modify arbitrary resources
anyway, though, so does it make sense to have a syntax that allows
modification of resources without the requirement (of the current
query system) that the resources be virtual?
I just had a thought, though -- if one has a virtual resource and two
of these resource-modifying queries, will the first query mark the
resource non-virtual and the second query be a no-op because the
resource isn't virtual any more? E.g.,
class base {
file { "/tmp/test": content => foo }
}
class sub inherits base {
File <| |> { mode => 666 }
}
class other inherits base {
File <| |> { content => bar }
}
include sub, other
The first query will make the resource non-virtual, and I think that
means the second query will null-op, which means the override wouldn't
happen.
Right?
As expected, I just ran this code in your 1088 branch, and just the
first override took affect.
--
Ours is the age that is proud of machines that think and suspicious of
men who try to. -- H. Mumford Jones
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
