What I actually would like it to create a kind of dependency.
I would like that a parameter X of any instance of type 'b' *depends* on
the path param of the 'a' resource instance namely passed as a parameter.
file {'test' :
> ensure => present,
> name => 'test.txt',
> *within* => dir,
> }
>
> file {'dir' :
> ensure => directory,
> name => 'dir',
> path => '/tmp'
> }
>
This is not the best example since file does not work this way but its the
closest one to what I would like.
Imagine file was a custom type, so I know in the *within *param I am
expecting a File[] resource insance. I'd like to know if there is any way I
can get the parameters of this resource instance (dir)? (Something like
extrapolating it, or accessing it through catalog)
In the previous case File['test'] will end up being located at
'/tmp/text.txt', appending dir.path + test.name, without specifying the
path in File['test'] but just the directory it depends on.
I hope I could explain myself a bit better,
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:40:32 PM UTC+2, jcbollinger wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:07:41 AM UTC-5, Yanis Guenane wrote:
>>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I was wondering if it was possible to access type params within another
>> type.
>>
>> Here is an example of what I would like to do.
>>
>> Puppet::Type.newtype(:a) do
>>>
>> newparam(:name) do
>>> isnamevar
>>> end
>>>
>> newparam(:path) do
>>> end
>>> end
>>>
>>
>> Puppet::Type.newtype(:b) do
>>>
>> newparam(:name) do
>>> isnamevar
>>> end
>>>
>> newparam(:needs) do
>>>
>>> /* I want to access path param from 'a' type here
>>
>> something like resource[:needs].path */
>>>
>>
>>> end
>>> end
>>>
>>
>> And the manifest calling that would be
>>
>> a {'test-a' :
>>> path => '/usr',
>>> }
>>>
>>> b {'test-b' :
>>> needs => a
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Is it possible ?
>>
>
>
> What is the example supposed to mean? It doesn't make sense. As a best
> guess, what you actually want to do is access the parameter values of a
> resource *instance*, not (as you wrote) the parameter[ definition]s of a
> resource *type*. It might be possible to do that (involving somewhat
> different manifest syntax), but it would be decidedly non-idiomatic.
>
> Why do you want this? Your example is too abstract to tell me much.
>
>
> John
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/D25xHdkiLnMJ.
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.
