On Oct 12, 2010, at 17:22, Jeff McCune <[email protected]> wrote: On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Luke Kanies <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This is a fantastic simplification and summary of the questions. Without > adding mixin/extend functionality we lose real functionality, but I'm not > sure if it'll actually be used that much. > > Yes, this accurately describes my personal perspective. I don't have any hard data about what the impact of losing the functionality to not "mixin" or "extend" a resource default into the current class, but my gut is telling me the 2.7 timeframe is a good place to add this. If we miss 2.7 for this feature, however, my only concern is that people refuse to upgrade who require this functionality. We may get a lot of people "stuck" on 2.6 until we add extend into the language. We also have to make sure to communicate this loss and addition of functionality clearly. I would be really irritated if I re-factored my manifests only to find the work around was a waste of effort because the resource defaults functionality was re-added in a future version and I only needed to wait one version to gain it back. This is a good point - if we determine that this mixin functionality is needed to replace dynamic scoping, we can't realistically deprecate dynamic scoping without it. Thus, the deprecation logs can point to those new docs. -- http://puppetlabs.com/ | +1-615-594-8199 | @puppetmasterd -- 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.
