----- Original Message ----- > On Aug 23, 1:00 pm, Digant C Kasundra <[email protected]> wrote: > > Out of curiosity, how are people using parameterized classes in a > > way that is distinct from defined-types? > > <snark>I am _using_ defined types, that's how.</snark> > > Although I disfavor parameterized classes and do not use them, the > pattern of my usage of defined types could not be implemented via > parameterized classes. In particular, I typically do not define a > type unless I plan to instantiate it multiple times for the same > node. You cannot do that with parameterized classes. > > If you have an OO background then the words "class" and "type" may > have connotations and implied similarity for you that just don't apply > in Puppet. Puppet classes are not "types" in the type theory sense. > Defined types are closer to that, but it may help to use a fuller name > when you think about them: defined *resource* types. Classes, > parameterized or not, are not resource types; rather, they are > resource _collections_.
I agree with you. I think that's why I'm curious. We also overrides on defined types, which is why we prefer them as well. I think while it may be possible to do what we are currently doing with parameterized classes, it would at least involve a lot of restructuring how we think of things in our manifests. -- Digant C Kasundra <[email protected]> Infrastructure Systems Software Developer, ITS:IDG, Stanford University -- 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.
