Am Freitag, 12. Juli 2013 22:03:02 UTC+2 schrieb Andy Parker: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Brice Figureau < > [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On 12/07/13 18:04, Andy Parker wrote: >> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Nan Liu <[email protected]<javascript:> >> > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>> wrote: >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Brice Figureau >> > <[email protected] <javascript:> >> > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>> wrote: >> > >> > On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 03:52 -0700, Markus Burger wrote: >> > > We just released an internally developed puppet-networkdevice >> > module >> > > in the hope that some other folks might be interested in it >> :). >> > >> > >> > Awesome! >> > >> > >> > Absolutely! >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > It's currently still in an early stage but should be pretty >> > usable for >> > > the basic usecases. >> > > >> > > -> https://github.com/uniak/puppet-networkdevice >> > > >> > >> > >> > I have one small request about the code. It doesn't make a huge >> > difference right now, but putting the amount of code that you have in >> > Puppet::Util increases the chance that there ends up being some sort of >> > collision between your module and code in puppet itself. Instead of >> > using Puppet::Util, I would suggest following the decision reached >> > in https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/14149, which would mean that >> > you should use PuppetX::Uniak::NetworkDevice. >> > Thanks for the hint!
> >> And also integrate back the modifications to the fundations into core. >> >> > I didn't notice any modifications. There are some monkey patches (scares > me a little...they are everywhere, but not really "good"). What are the > modifications you are talking about? > The transport classes that are in the core lacked some very small features like noop support and a very simple cache thats pretty useful for the way we implanted the model properties. All in all this should be a pretty small pull request. The Module is still in an very early stage and currently in a dire need of some refactoring / cleanup, there is a lot of copy&paste code floating around in the models (i think your referring to this ?). We hope to clean everything up next Week. > > >> > > ## Overview >> > > >> > > The Cisco Networkdevice Module provides a common way to manage >> > various >> > > configuration properties with Puppet and was initially based >> > on the >> > > network_device utility provided by Puppet. >> > >> > Your development is much more complete than my very limited >> > implementation, congrats! >> > >> > > Currently most providers, types, etc are suffixed with _ios >> as to >> > > avoid collusion with the network_device code already provided >> by >> > > puppet. >> > >> > That make sense, but you also apparently integrated some of the >> bits >> > that were in the core (I was thinking about the transport >> classes). >> > I won't speak for the core maintainers here, but that'd be great >> > if you >> > could have used what was in the core. >> > >> > What was preventing you to use the mechanisms/features that were >> > already >> > there? >> > Is that you wanted to modify/add things on top of that? >> > >> > So now that we have this module, is it time to remove all the >> cisco >> > stuff from the core, and leave only the base network device >> > mechanism >> > (possibly enriched by some of the functionalities this module >> > provides)? >> > >> > >> > +1, it's always harder to iterate in puppet core, and much easier to >> > improve as a module for these type of functionality. I would much >> > rather update my module than upgrade puppet for these type of >> > improvements. >> > >> > >> > I agree. If this module covers all of the existing cases and more of the >> > core modules, then I don't see why we shouldn't start deprecating the >> > core ones and promote these. >> >> Sure, but this module also contains duplication with some of the feature >> that are in core. I'd hate to remove all the network device stuff for >> core (but that's your call obviously). I'd prefer to integrate what >> required Markus to duplicate, instead of removing everything from the >> core. >> >> Does it make sense? >> > > I'd really like to slim down the core and work toward things like this > living outside. Then we can make the decisions about bringing it all back > together for packaging. As Nan said, keeping it out of core allows it to > iterate faster. > > I'm not proposing removing the network devices feature (unless something > better comes along), but support for specific devices should probably live > outside. > > >> -- >> Brice Figureau >> My Blog: http://www.masterzen.fr/ >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Puppet Developers" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > > -- > Andrew Parker > [email protected] <javascript:> > Freenode: zaphod42 > Twitter: @aparker42 > Software Developer > > *Join us at PuppetConf 2013, August 22-23 in San Francisco - * > http://bit.ly/pupconf13* > **Register now and take advantage of the Early Bird discount - save 25%!* > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
