On Sep 25, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Nigel Kersten wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Patrick <kc7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 25, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Nigel Kersten wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Nan Liu <n...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Nigel Kersten <nig...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> eg the proposal is that if you don't specify the protocol, server
>>>>> address, modules prefix, module name, it is assumed you are referring
>>>>> to a file path relative to the 'files' subdirectory of the current
>>>>> module.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you wish to fully specify the source URI, you're free to do so.
>>>>
>>>> Since we can determine module_name in 2.6, I agree with this change.
>>>> But we should update template behavior so it's the same as file.
>>>> Currently for templates:
>>>>
>>>> content => template("foo.erb"),
>>>
>>> Ah I missed addressing this point.
>>>
>>> I don't think we can do this and still have backwards compatibility.
>>>
>>> How do you tell whether 'foo/bar.erb' refers to 'foo' the module or a
>>> subdirectory 'foo' in the current module? Which should take
>>> precedence? How do we throw a deprecation warning?
>>>
>>> I don't think we can feasibly forbid references to templates outside
>>> the current module. That would have a significant effect upon our
>>> ability to share modules.
>>>
>>> With the benefit of hindsight, we should possibly have made the source
>>> parameter, file function and template function consistent...
>>>
>>> Can we get there from here?
>>
>> What about instead defining something uncommon to be "module root".
>> Something like, as a random example, "~/". Then the syntax goes from
>> "file:///modules/$modulename/file" to "~/file".
>
> I'm normally really reluctant to add more special characters to the
> syntax, as I feel like we're way too busy as it stands, but I really
> do quite like this idea, using normal *nix syntax for your home vs
> other users...
>
> Let me incorporate your suggestion as I think adding syntax allows us
> to make all three consistent.
>
> modules/$module_name/files/foo
> file { source => "~/foo" }
>
> File (source) from another module 'bar':
> file { source => "~bar/foo" }
>
> modules/$module_name/templates/foo.erb
> template("~/foo.erb")
>
> modules/bar/templates/foo.erb:
> template("~bar/foo.erb")
>
> modules/$module_name/files/foo
> file("~/foo")
>
> modules/bar/files/foo
> file("~bar/foo")
>
>
> All of this *only* applies if you are within a module.
> We don't deprecate the puppet:// or file:// syntax
> Do we deprecate the existing template function syntax?
> If not, do we add the existing template function syntax to the file
> function for consistency?
> We don't support setting the server, or access to static mount points.
> If you want those, use the puppet:// syntax.
>
> This feels good. We're optimizing for the two most common cases,
> without removing the most flexible syntax.
Here's something to think about. Would it be worth the effort to allow
"file://server.com/~/file"?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-us...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
