Sorry, this came out completely wrong, from my personal point of
view, please integrate extlookup.
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:59 PM, R.I.Pienaar <[email protected]> wrote:
----- "Ohad Levy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not that I want to fight over which versions gets in, but my
> implementation already supports yaml and module lookup (based on the
> client environment).
you mean the commit you did just 10 minutes ago?
http://github.com/ohadlevy/puppet-lookup/commits/master
I really do not have time for games, please take whatever code you
want, I have better things to do.
>
> cheers,
> Ohad
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:36 PM, R.I.Pienaar < [email protected] >
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- "Luke Kanies" < [email protected] > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 9, 2010, at 11:12 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > ----- "Luke Kanies" < [email protected] > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Jun 9, 2010, at 10:59 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> ----- "Luke Kanies" < [email protected] > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 10:44 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I think a big part of what we're interested in that Ohad
has
> > is
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>> yaml support, rather than CSV.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It really is no challenge to get extlookup to speak yaml,
> > people
> > >>>>> have it speaking to all sorts of sources even ldap.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> What would be useful is instead of randomly going picking
> > >>>>> implementations if you can say what you want to change and I
> > can
> > >>>>> look at doing that.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sorry, I didn't think I was randomly picking
implementations -
> I
> > >>>> thought I was picking a slightly modified version that
already
> > >>>> supported YAML.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It's easy - I basically just want default support for YAML.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> isnt right if you're going to merge it. Can you think of a
> > >> quick
> > >>>>>>> easy way to improve that?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> What is the global variable problem, again?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> configuring the search order and behavior of the tools is
done
> > >> with
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> a variable in site.pp, which feels very hacky to me.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Seems like adding a setting for them is the appropriate
choice,
> > >>>> right?
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Yeah, though being in site.pp it also means they can differ
per
> > >>> environment. Here's an example:
> > >>>
> > >>> $extlookup_datadir = "/etc/puppet/manifests/extdata"
> > >>> $extlookup_precedence = ["%{fqdn}", "foo_%{foo}", "location_%
> > >>> {location}", "domain_%{domain}", "country_%{country}",
"common"]
> > >>
> > >> puppet.conf supports environments just fine, right?
> > >
> > > yes, just saying, this should be environment aware if we do it.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> so issues are:
> > >>>
> > >>> - they are global variables puppet.conf under the environments
> > would
> > >>
> > >>> be great
> > >>> - they have these weird %{varname} notation, I believe the
need
> > for
> > >>
> > >>> that is fixed in recent puppets but there was some parsing
order
> > >>> weirdness back in the day.
> > >>>
> > >>> The, possibly sucky, thing is that those variables like %{foo}
> > >>> would be within the context of the scope the extlookup()
call is
> > >>> done in,
> > >>>
> > >>> class a {
> > >>> $foo = "bar"
> > >>> extlookup("test")
> > >>> }
> > >>>
> > >>> class a {
> > >>> $foo = "blah"
> > >>> extlookup("test")
> > >>> }
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Isn't going to give you the same answer if you have matching
> data
> > >>> files, i dont know if we can retain this behavior, make these
> > >>> settings AND get rid of the strange variable notation.
> > >>
> > >> The easy answer is no. If you switch to settings, dynamic
scoping
> > is
> > >> gone, but I'm happy at that.
> > >
> > > hmm, so how would settings potentially look, how would we
> reference
> >
> > > a fact etc in the puppet.conf?
> > >
> > > in extlookup essentially I pull out %{...} and just do
> > > lookupvar("...") and search replace it in there, I can keep
doing
> > > this they are just tokens for search and replace. It just doesnt
> > > seem overly puppet like to me, introducing fancy new variable
> rules
> >
> > > but thats the best I could do in the context of a parser
function.
> >
> > > Really I am looking for a way to improve on this.
> >
> > Yeah, I don't have much of an answer here. Settings don't support
> > interpolation outside of settings. You could hack something for
> > extlookup to use -- e.g., interpolating %foo as a variable in the
>
> yeah, exactly what I do now.
>
> OK, well then I guess if you dont find that syntax too offensive
then
> its fine, I'll have a play with yaml support.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 .
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
--
R.I.Pienaar
--
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
.
--
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
.
