On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 13:05, Daniel Pittman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I can't think of a sane use case that doesn't lead to confusion; in > the cloud case: If you are adding absolutely *zero* behaviour to the > underlying faces then this might, maybe, be stretched to make sense. > If not... It occurs to me that you might be expecting another "implementation detail" to remain true: if you are assuming that you can just pass the superset of options for all the underlying faces to each of the underlying faces, that is unlikely to remain possible. Right now you can do that, because we don't do enough validation: unknown options are silently ignored. In future, they will likely be an error, since they will *not* do what the caller expected. Hint: think about using faces as API other than on the command-line, such as through an HTTP mapping: having it silently ignore the 'atcion=foo' argument would not be ... terribly friendly. :) Daniel -- ⎋ Puppet Labs Developer – http://puppetlabs.com ✉ Daniel Pittman <[email protected]> ✆ Contact me via gtalk, email, or phone: +1 (877) 575-9775 ♲ Made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons -- 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.
