> The root problem is that if the resource getting instantiated is a > user-defined type (hostclass or definition), resource.resource_type is an > instance of Puppet::Resource::Type, but if the resource getting instantiated > is a built-in type, then resource.resource_type is actually a Ruby class > representing the built-in type. >
Despite this design smell, we already expect the built-in types and the Puppet::Resource::Type instances to conform to the same interface, otherwise we wouldn't pass them into the same codepath at all. I believe that using `is_a?` instead of continuing to expect them to implement an interface will actually make it harder to refactor this design in the future. -- 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.
