On Sep 27, 2010, at 7:55 AM, Nigel Kersten wrote: > On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Luke Kanies <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> I'm perfectly ok with having a core set of facts that are indeed more >>> important than the rest. >> >> I don't think I even understand your proposal (the bits about saving to >> disk, especially), so it's hard for me to think it's a good idea. > > Run 1: > Parameters are written to disk using templates/content attributes. > > Run 2: > Fact reads same location, generating facts for each entry. > > > Multiple runs is the only way I can see to make a link from node > parameters to facts. > > Node parameters are easy to use to manage whether a fact is executed or not. > > Facts are the only way we can actually confine a fact.
True. In fact, you can confine the fact based on other facts in the fact definition, but if you trusted the fact, you wouldn't have this problem in the first place. I"m still putting this in the theory category until someone can actually some up with an example implementation that at least kind of works. And I bet a registration-based system that relies on central or essentially central facts rather than a not-yet-final version on the client is a better move. -- Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
