On Sunday, May 6, 2012 10:48:31 PM UTC-7, David Schmitt wrote: > > On 2012-05-06 00:44, Philip Brown wrote: > > it does seem to have potential overlap with windows registry types, > > though. So while "sysproperties" could work with that, "svcproperties" > > would not, seems to me. > > If it makes sense to have this class shared between those two uses. I > dunno. > > Any ms-windows developers reading this? > > Is there anything internally or externally valuable in conflating > svcproperties and registry entries? > > Ask yourself the following questions: > > * Do the different systems have the same parameters? > > * Will it allow code-sharing? e.g. Do the two share a common > key-syntax which can be checked in the Type, while the provider > only manage read/write to the storage. > > * Could Linux' sysctl code be integrated too? > > * Can the Type provide a useful abstraction? > > * Could the same abstraction be provided as a module wrapping the > low-level types? >
Trouble is, I dont know the answer to these things. I dont know linux sysctl. I dont DEEPLY know windows registry stuff (although the light level I know of, seems to be pretty analogous) (A quick read of the linux manpage for "sysctl", however, tell me that that is different. sysctl seems to be "only" for kernel parameters, whereas what I'm writing, is parameters for userland services) Given the potential confusion on naming for linux "sysctl" and related stuff, I'm now thinking that the naming for my module is better named as "svcprop", though. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-dev/-/rF5_WDPfdJsJ. 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.
