On Sep 15, 2009, at 11:36 PM, Paul Nasrat wrote:

>
> 2009/9/15 James Turnbull <[email protected]>:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Thomas Bellman wrote:
>>> Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
>>>
>>>> You probably can't avoid `df` if you want something which works for
>>>> anything else than Linux too.
>>>
>>> Of course, the output from df differs between different Unixes...
>
>> And I sense the maze of twisty little passages that are all alike
>> that we ventured down for the interface facts but you could take a
>> look at that code to see how different output was parsed (or not
>> depending on how people feel about that code... :) ).
>
> I'd rather not use that as an example on how to do this, tests were
> retrofitted, it is brittle and too monolithic.
>
> We already support a mechanism to confine particular facts resolvers
> based on operatingsystem.
>
> I'd say small tested facts for each operatingsystem with clear
> responsibility are preferred rather than what we have in the formerly
> named ipmess.rb .


While I agree that the interface world is heinously messy, I kind of  
like the idea of a bit of an abstract interface built into a library,  
and then simple facts that essentially just call out to that  
interface.  I think it's more maintainable in the long term,  
especially as we don't currently have the ability to test individual  
fact resolutions.

-- 
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In
either case, the thought is staggering. --R. Buckminster Fuller
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to