FAQ
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:17 PM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Price" <chris@puppetlabs.com>
To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:07:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Community input requested on potential
`unless_uid` addition to user resources
p.s., if we do go down this path it would be interesting to see if
there is some sort of existing library or standard specification for
boolean logic expressions that we could piggy-back off of, rather
than rolling our own.
we wrote one recently for mcollective, no idea if its something that can
be generically used or made to be more generic


On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Chris Price < chris@puppetlabs.com >
wrote:


Aren't we, in effect, introducing another (mini, boolean) language
with this sort of proposal, though? I agree that the generality and
flexibility is appealing, but the idea of designing and supporting
another parser / lexer gives me pause.


Not to say that the benefits might not be worthwhile... just seems
like a big leap to take.




On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Luke Kanies < luke@puppetlabs.com >
wrote:

On May 16, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Pieter van de Bruggen wrote:

[…]
At the risk of getting booed off, what of this as a syntax?

class users::resources {
resources { 'user':
purge => true,
unless => 'uid < 10000 OR uid > 20000';
}
}

This seems to be a more flexible syntax over a wider range of
properties and values, with the tradeoff of requiring a bit more
effort and explanation to use. Thoughts?
I do like the more general syntax - and it's something that's been
asked for a lot. I know there's at least one ticket about this.

The counterpoint to your proposal is that there's working code for
the other one, so we might ourselves rejecting a patch and instead
doing nothing.

--
Luke Kanies | http://about.me/lak | http://puppetlabs.com/ |
+1-615-594-8199

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Puppet Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com .
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com .
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en .





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Puppet Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
So, as a WAG, how long might it take to implement the generic version of
this? How does that trade off against merging the pull request but running
through a deprecation cycle later?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase