This was pretty much the reply that I was forming in my head. I'm seriously concerned about the many-to-many graph explosion that happens with requiring a class.
It makes this concept work well for very small configurations but I've officially listed it as a code smell for any internal development due to both server and client death on complex graphs. Trevor On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:08 AM, donavan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 1, 2:02 pm, Dan Bode <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I wanted to open the feature >> requesthttp://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/5824for discussion. > > I suppose I would echo the general complexity concern about the > 'simple' puppet DSL. I see the use case, but the problem scope seems > very limited in comparison to another expansion of the DSL. Does this > really solve any problem besides changing internal references when you > change a class name? > > And on a vaguely related note: > Does Class[foo]->Class[bar] still create a many to many set of > relationships between all resources in those two classes? > Is the puppet DSL really such a simple DSL anymore? We keep adding > complex functionality to the 'basic' puppet DSL instead of the > 'advanced' Ruby DSL. > > -- > 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. > > -- Trevor Vaughan Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc (410) 541-6699 [email protected] -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information -- -- 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.
