On May 5, 2012, at 8:21 PM, Philip Brown wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, May 5, 2012 7:42:43 PM UTC-7, Luke Kanies wrote:
>
> Sorry - I meant it needs to be in the definition of the relevant property,
> which in this case is 'ensure' (but in exec is 'returns').
>
>
> For those "following along at home", that apparently means that, rather than
> the nice simple (but apparently, OVERLY simplified)
> single line of
>
> "ensurable"
> in a type definition, I now have to do:
>
> ensurable do
> defaultvalues
>
> # This appears to be "change to state", for "ensurable"s.
> def change_to_s(oldstate,newstate)
> if ( oldstate == :absent && newstate == :present )
> return "set #{@resource[:property]} = #{@resource[:value]}"
> end
> end
> end
>
> This stuff may as well be black magic. it reaaally needs to be added to the
> "how to write your own type" documentation!! :(
> It is not at all apparent, than a single line,
> "ensurable" is some short cut for an expandable "property definition"
>
> Similarly for the "defaultvalues" line. not particular understandable, but
> "it just has to be there".
>
> (At least I have C++/java experience, so I can guess how it works. but for
> someone else trying to learn how to write their own types, etc. .. yuck)
I largely agree - for the very simple cases of the very complex cases, it works
well enough, but for anything in between it's a bit rough.
I think the RAL is in drastic need of refactoring, but it's a large job with a
larger backward compatibility problem and isn't directly necessary to get
anything else done, so it never quite gets prioritized like I'd like.
--
Luke Kanies | http://about.me/lak | http://puppetlabs.com/ | +1-615-594-8199
--
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.
