On Monday, May 19, 2014 11:47:41 AM UTC-5, Joshua Hoblitt wrote: > > It seems to me that there are two reoccurring basic themes in this > thread of folks expressing either: > > * eagerness to push more data into hiera >
No, I don't think that's a good characterization. There is no particular barrier now to putting any and all relevant data into hiera. The theme here is about whether Puppet should provide for binding that data to resource instances directly and automatically, or whether it should continue to rely on classes to serve as intermediaries for that purpose. > or > * sentiment that hiera is already a performance bottleneck > > That, on the other hand, is certainly a prominent theme. It has been my main focus in arguing against resource-level automated data binding, but it is not the only concern there. As I also said, I think classes are the right level of abstraction for data binding, and I have misgivings about opening up a new avenue for mucking with module internals. Along those lines, what I'd really like to see is a tighter data binding focus, revolving around a distinction expressible in DSL between public module components and internal ones. Given such a computationally-observable distinction, I would specifically like to see 1. Module-specific data along the lines R.I. proposed, or similar. 2. Private classes of a module skipping general data sources, and relying directly and only on module-specific data. If I understand Alessandro correctly, that might serve as a sound foundation for what he wants to do, too. 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 puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/07a74f4b-e980-43b7-9e57-5b84ab652922%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
