On Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:27:08 PM UTC-6, henrik lindberg wrote: > > > I can imagine the system evolving even further in that direction and > ultimately requiring that any behavior above basic data type / integrity > checks is implemented in a provider. > >
Types do provide a handy place to put code that all providers need. Especially so if the shared code is characteristic of the modeled resource type itself, as opposed to being associated with a particular implementation of that resource. Generally speaking, though, I quite agree that type / provider separation is a good thing, and that the bias should be to move further in that direction. John -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/73f793d8-445d-42e2-bf5a-656a0a0ae792%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
