Daniel Pittman wrote: > 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.
+1 - plus what Daniel said. Regards James -- James Turnbull Puppet Labs 1-503-734-8571 -- 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.
