On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Daniel Pittman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I can't honestly say if I like this as an interim step on the way: it > gives us the capability now, and cheaply, which is pretty darn > awesome. We would really benefit from some uniform way to do this, > and it would let us test kwalify in the real world. I agree. Shippable solutions win over perfect designs. However, I share Daniel's concerns about the schema being a separate file, particularly if we're going to ship modules with this. For someone new to the idea, there's no visible connection between a `validate_resource()` call and a schema file. Inline comments might help ameliorate this (e.g., "This function loads a .schema file in the current directory"), but that's a fragile approach. What if we included the schema in the manifest within the `validate_resource()` call? This would make the connection more explicit and avoid an extra file (and extra file /type/, which worries me at least as much). It would make manifests which use it larger, but I prefer ugly and explicit communication over elegant and obfuscated[1]. Once we ship this we can work on a syntax to bring it into the language and make the full schema obsolete. I imagine this wouldn't land until Telly, so we have some time. r ---- 1. Not to imply that your current approach, Ken, is intentionally obfuscated :) -- 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.
