On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 08:17, Nigel Kersten <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Robin Lee Powell
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> So, I started with puppet about two years ago (December 2008). At
>> the time, I was under the impression that the list of Types would
>> grow a lot (i.e. http://docs.puppetlabs.com/references/stable/type.html ).
>> In fact, the file type says:
>>
>> If you find that you are often copying files in from a central
>> location, rather than using native resources, please contact
>> Puppet Labs and we can hopefully work with you to develop a native
>> resource to support what you are doing.
[...]
> I don't think there's anything deliberate there.
>
> We don't have native Ruby libraries for many of the things sysadmins
> need to do, and so even when you write a Ruby type/provider, you're
> often execing out to external binaries anyway.
The other thing I keep in mind is that using a 'define' that wraps
some file and exec operations *is* keeping with the spirit of that
statement, if not the letter: sure, it defines the type in the DSL,
but it means that your nodes are referring to high level types and
concepts, not low level implementation details.
For example, you could rewrite your 'define apache::site' into a Ruby
type/provider pair and *nothing* would have to change for users of it
– the fact that it happens to be implemented one way or the other is
encapsulated.
For what that is worth...
Daniel
--
✉ Daniel Pittman <[email protected]>
⌨ [email protected] (XMPP)
☎ +1 503 893 2285
♻ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" 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-users?hl=en.
