On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:13, Ken Barber <[email protected]> wrote: >> I wonder if that is an immediate need, or if it could wait until we >> started to merge this into the language proper? I guess, what I miss >> right here is that while those are valuable uses of the data, they >> don't seem to me on the critical path of testing Kwalify in the real >> world and finding out how it works... > > So let me explain why I think this is important (at least from my > small perspective) - and I apologies if I'm re-iterating something > already known. One of the drivers behind this work is to allow rich > form entry for creation of parameterized classes in the dashboard.
*nod* > This is an often-sought feature for the customers I speak to and I > think one of the reasons dashboard is not as often used for > ENC/configuration purposes (change auditing and roll-back being > another reason). Currently the specification we have is not rich > enough in my opinion to generate a form that includes things like: > complex data types (hashes, arrays), context sensitive help and client > side validation for the kind of users who _need_ to use dashboard. Yeah. So, long term I think a method for providing rich annotations of things in the Puppet language is a solid goal, and that this validation is part of the process of getting there. Ideally, it would be good to have a unified design, but failing that at least knowing the tools are solid is great. So, I think it is extremely valuable to expose this, and don't get me wrong. I just think there is value in establishing that Kwalify is useful alone of that. > Having said that though - providing a methodology for form generation > is only part of the problem, and really the ENC parts of dashboard > (whatever they end up looking like) need lots of work to make this > kind of magic happen anyway ... so its not important _now_. (but still > important to be mindful of :-). > > I think for now modifying the existing function validate_resource() > (is this is a good name?) to take a kwalify schema and to validate the > current resource/class sounds like a good working approach. If no one > else has any problems with this - I'm happy to work towards that for > now. Awesome. I totally agree with your overall position, though. Daniel -- ⎋ Puppet Labs Developer – http://puppetlabs.com ♲ 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.
