It definitely makes sense now that exec actually has providers. As you say though, this was out of scope for the work we were currently doing which was just to split as much as possible to allow the shell provider and test things as much as possible. The exec type and provider are by no means beautiful and cleanly refactored at this point, and will certainly need more work once we start trying to make more providers (like for windows).
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Markus Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > One thought, looking through the code (I haven't given it a thorough read > yet) is that it may make sense to split the MS Windows provider off from the > posixs provider (though that's out of scope here, I think). > > -- M > ----------------------------------------------------------- > When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, > scream and shout. -- 1920's parody of the > maritime general prudential rule > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > 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.
