On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:09, Jacob Helwig <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just my personal opinion: I think we're actually better off > implementing #4113[2] in the long-run. When I spoke to Luke about those options, his expectation would be that this was a single parameter on the package type, which would take a set of boolean options. You could add a little language to that (like, say, the environment) that allowed options with arguments to be passed, and let each provider parse it themselves, but ... that sounds like an invitation to unmanageable data to me. In solving that I would strongly encourage you to address additional per-provider top level parameters and properties available, rather than just packing complex data into strings. 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.
