On Mar 14, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Markus Roberts wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Luke Kanies
<[email protected]> wrote:
I like the idea, but does it make more sense to create a new
ScopeCollection class or something to manage this?
All of this actually used to be in the Scope class, and I found it
confusing and difficult to manage there -- e.g., all of the Scope
instances have the methods for managing this data, but only the top
scope actually uses them. It makes reading the Scope class really
annoying.
Alternatively, maybe have a module that adds all of this behaviour,
and then only include that module in the top scope?
My main motivation for this particular change at this particular
time was that the combination of changes we already have in the
queue should in theory make all this much simpler but was in fact
making it all heinously complicated because data was tunneling
through various structures whose only roll in that regard was to be
there for the data to tunnel through--very much as if you took your
end of the string out of the cage one way, I took mine out another,
and rather than removing the string from the cage the result was to
get it tangled in the bars.
Continuing that physical analogy, the goal of this change is roll up
part of the string into a ball, so that that piece at least winds up
all going by the same route as I resolve the merge conflicts it
creates. At that point, if the Scope class is too cluttered, then
it might make sense to break it apart.
Another side point, placing class scopes on (and only on) the top
scope--or the compiler, which then becomes an outer-scope--is in
effect a design decisions that could at least in principle have been
made the other way; they could have been scoped/name-spaced the way
everything else is, simplifying the code but altering the
semantics. In this regard they are very like the ephemerals, in
that both are classes of name-value bindings that follow slightly
different rules than the normal.
Ok, that makes sense.
It feels like a frustrating regression to the state we were in a year
or so ago, but as long as we are doing this for tactical reasons, it
works for me.
--
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul. -- George Bernard Shaw
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Kanies -|- http://reductivelabs.com -|- +1(615)594-8199
--
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.
