On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Andy Parker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Jeff McCune <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Does this still leave us in the difficult situation where the Faces >> application file itself lives along the modulepath, so we use one >> configuration file section to determine the module path, then the mode >> (section) changes out from underneath us, and we use another section >> to resolve the rest of the settings? How would a new action >> augmenting the `puppet module` application behave in this situation? > > Yeah, we are still in that situation. The settings that are seen during the > run are not necessarily in line with what was used during application > discover. There is actually even a slightly larger issue: the modulepath > during discovery is being added to the ruby LOAD_PATH so that utility code > can be loaded. This means that it may end up with things that it maybe > "shouldn't" have access to because it started with one modulepath and then > wanted to run in "master" mode to get a different modulepath. I don't think > this is a problem for any existing applications, though, since I'm special > casing master and agent to start in the current manner.
At least `puppet resource` and `apply` probably depend on the same run_mode vs LOAD_PATH thing, because they interact directly with the type and provider system. Ditto the resource face. -- Daniel Pittman ⎋ 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.
