On Nov 19, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Nigel Kersten wrote: > [...] > > Anyway, I'm unsure whether I should be doing a provider for this. I > can't think of a generic enough term for what this sort of thing is > that is likely to require different providers for different platforms. > > If this is something that is always going to be Mac specific, is there > a problem with doing it all as a Type and not having a Provider at > all? > > Is there some benefit other than platform difference abstraction to > having a Provider?
This is something I've wrestled with, too. What I would say is that there are good code separation reasons to create a provider. You are essentially splitting your code into two bits: The model and the implementation. I think it's easier to maintain this code, but it's about 100x easier to test it when it's split this way. I'm not going to say I wouldn't accept the patch (esp. since it's James's decision), but I'd recommend a provider. I would say that it's perfectly fine to have the provider in the same file as the type if you never plan on having more than one provider. -- Happiness is not achieved by the conscious pursuit of happiness; it is generally the by-product of other activities. -- Aldous Huxley --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
