On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Luke Kanies <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jun 7, 2010, at 7:43 AM, Markus Roberts wrote:
>
>  David --
>>
>> > That's the internal/implementation side of it. Please see below for
>> explainations about the frills
>> > I added for the more "user"/developer oriented spec in my mail.
>>
>> I saw it, I'm just not sold on it (yet).  The internal side, as you call
>> it, looks pretty clean and high payoff; the additions are (IMHO) lower
>> payoff and more problematic.  I'm not saying that I couldn't be convinced,
>> but I (and I'd thought we) had stopped where we did for exactly that reason.
>>
>> > We didn't talk about it. But how would puppet reference the following
>> resources in a log message?
>>
>> By their titles.  And for this reason users shouldn't give resources
>> titles that they won't be able to subsequently recognize, just as now.
>>
>
> This is basically where I'd planned on taking this - either lose the
> requirement that titles be unique (e.g., dependencies are lazy binding
> anyway, so you could just depend on all things that have that title), or
> don't care about unique titles unless there's a relationship involved.  I
> prefer the former.  Titles are for humans anyway, so they have complete
> control over how it works.


I concur.

I think it's confusing for people to suddenly have their titles matter if
they specify a relationship, and it's better to lose the uniqueness
requirement instead.



>
>
>  Also the question arose around Trevor's mail how storedconfig's
>> resources.title is filled. Which, like the log message, is more of a
>> usability thing than anything else, because the user would expect a
>> "well-formed" title, that corresponds to the specified parameters,
>> independently of how they are specified.
>>
>> Ditto with storeconfigs; I'd say use the title, as now.  The idea is very
>> simple when it's unidirectional and very complicated (or perhaps "simple but
>> full of edge cases") when you try to make it bi-directional.
>>
>> BTW, I'll be back in the office as of today & will kick this around with
>> Jesse, who may convince me one way or the other, and I'll be trying to get
>> the patches I promised you by the end of this coming week out ASAP .
>>
>
>
> --
> Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but
> never hit soft! -- Theodore Roosevelt
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Luke Kanies  -|-   http://puppetlabs.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]<puppet-dev%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
nigel

-- 
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