- Are we missing :OUT_EDGE_SUB intentionally (in which case you should
change your example) or by oversight?
Those two points are related - I just reused the edge type.
>
So you declare an OUT_EDGE_SUB token but then use LESSEQUAL? So why didn't
you do the same with FARROW? And how does that work? Or am I just being
dense here?
> - +1 in general though.
>
> Heh, I've got another version in the works (prototyped but not fleshed
> out).
>
> I did a 10 second investigation at some point and concluded that adding
> collections to this would be too complicated, but I just did an 11 second
> investigation (yep, really putting the effort out) and found it was nearly
> trivial: Plain code is going to see about 10 new lines.
>
> I'll be pushing that once I've actually written in out, but the following
> creates a bunch of edges, like you'd want:
>
> class foo {
> notify { b: loglevel => warning }
> notify { a: loglevel => warning }
> notify { c: loglevel => warning }
> notify { d: loglevel => warning }
> }
>
> class bar {
> notify { 1: loglevel => notice }
> notify { 2: loglevel => notice }
> notify { 3: loglevel => notice }
> notify { 4: loglevel => notice }
> }
>
> include foo, bar
>
> Notify <| loglevel == notice |> ~> Notify <| loglevel == warning |>
>
> Of course, this example isn't useful in real life, but if you replace the
> 'loglevel warning' things with packages, and the 'loglevel notice' things
> with yumrepo instances:
>
> Yumrepo <| |> -> Package <| provider => yum |>
>
> Then it starts to get a bit more useful. :)
>
>
So how far are we from this being a direct competitor with run stages?
-- M
--
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.
