Hello John, On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:53 PM, jcbollinger <john.bollin...@stjude.org> wrote: > Yes. When one class declares another, whether via the 'include' or > 'require' function or via a parametrized-style declaration, that > (intentionally) does not establish any ordering relationship between the > declaring and declared classes. Without something else, such as anchors, to > establish an order between them, the two classes are disconnected in the > relationship graph; that has come to be described as the declared class > "floating off", especially when the declaring class is connected to multiple > others in the relationship graph. > > Such disconnectedness is not necessarily a problem, because it may indeed be > that no relative ordering of the classes involved is necessary or expected. > If, however, the purpose of the one class declaring the other is to > aggregate the latter into a larger unit, then it is a indeed an issue that > needs to be addressed. That's where you need to use the anchor pattern. >
Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated. I suppose containing resources is a fundamentally solved problem by virtue of the design and goal, but containing classes seems to be a little different. Nevertheless, I always do try to not having to enforce any order, but at times, I suppose it becomes necessary. Thanks again for taking the time to explain the behaviour. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@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.
