Puppet users - Oct 2007 - append to static array (was: Re: Why External Node Classification is my future)

On 10/29/07, Luke Kanies <luke@madstop.com> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2007, at 2:35 PM, Brian Finney wrote:
> > Although iteration would be really cool if we could also append to an
> > array in a global fashion, but thats a completely different dream.
>
> What do you mean?
Thinking some thing like:

# define for simple firewall control
define port($port, $status){
    push $ports, [$port,$status]; # borrowing syntax from perl again
    include ports;
}
class ports{
    use the array that has been created by instantiating port multiple times
}

I''m betting that this is much easier said than implemented and this
likely wouldn''t be necessary if a native type where used for
"port".

However it also seems like this could take care of some (many?)
situations that are currently done with:

$ports=/some/file
$def_dir=$ports.d
define port($port, $status){
    file{"$def_dir/$name":
        path => "$def_dir/$name",
        content => "some/template/using/port/status";
    }
    include ports
}
class ports{
    file{"$def_dir":
        path => "$def_dir",
        notify => Exec["ports"];
    }
    exec{"ports":
        command => "cat $def_dir/* > $ports",
        refreshonly => true;
    }
}

Hopefully I will have some down time soon to dig deeper into the code
base and have a better understanding of how my ideas could fit in.

Thanks
Brian

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 30 October 2007, Brian Finney wrote:
> On 10/29/07, Luke Kanies <luke@madstop.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 2007, at 2:35 PM, Brian Finney wrote:
> > > Although iteration would be really cool if we could also append
to an
> > > array in a global fashion, but thats a completely different
dream.
> >
> > What do you mean?
>
> Thinking some thing like:
>
> # define for simple firewall control
> define port($port, $status){
>     push $ports, [$port,$status]; # borrowing syntax from perl again
>     include ports;
> }
> class ports{
>     use the array that has been created by instantiating port multiple
> times }
>
> I''m betting that this is much easier said than implemented and
this
> likely wouldn''t be necessary if a native type where used for
"port".
Definitely! Using a native type, you can have a provider that flushes only at 
the end of the transaction, which is a often repeated pattern in my 
modules[1] e.g. using a concatenated_file.



[1] git://git.black.co.at/manifests  http://git.black.co.at/
- -- 
The primary freedom of open source is not the freedom from cost, but the free-
dom to shape software to do what you want. This freedom is /never/ exercised
without cost, but is available /at all/ only by accepting the very different
costs associated with open source, costs not in money, but in time and effort.
- -- http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070710-1129/on-forks-and-forking
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHJvrd/Pp1N6Uzh0URAqRrAJ0S4Oi1bFJYEhDewozlVU3b1JptYQCeKKu7
Zk6YFzxs6IIlNktlyFuL4Zw=JJnE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Oct 30, 2007, at 4:23 AM, Brian Finney wrote:
>
> Thinking some thing like:
>
> # define for simple firewall control
> define port($port, $status){
>     push $ports, [$port,$status]; # borrowing syntax from perl again
>     include ports;
> }
> class ports{
>     use the array that has been created by instantiating port  
> multiple times
> }
>
> I''m betting that this is much easier said than implemented and
this
> likely wouldn''t be necessary if a native type where used for
"port".
>
> However it also seems like this could take care of some (many?)
> situations that are currently done with:
> [...]
> Hopefully I will have some down time soon to dig deeper into the code
> base and have a better understanding of how my ideas could fit in.
At this point I''ve got so much other development to do that I
can''t
really even think about the repercussions this would have on the  
language.  Maybe check back once I''ve got the next couple of releases  
out.

  --
  If there is anything the nonconformist hates worse than a conformist,
  it''s another nonconformist who doesn''t conform to the
prevailing
  standard of nonconformity.    --Bill Vaughan
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com

--On Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:23 AM -0700 Brian Finney 
<y0gi636@gmail.com> wrote:
># define for simple firewall control
> define port($port, $status){
>     push $ports, [$port,$status]; # borrowing syntax from perl again
>     include ports;
> }
> class ports{
>     use the array that has been created by instantiating port multiple
> times }
Seems to me like this should be a native type and not something definable 
within Puppet.  I''m really opposed to the idea of Puppet becoming 
yet-another-scripting-language.  But a native-type would be awesome for 
this.

On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:30:30PM -0800, Digant C Kasundra
wrote:
> --On Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:23 AM -0700 Brian Finney 
> <y0gi636@gmail.com> wrote:
> ># define for simple firewall control
> > define port($port, $status){
> >     push $ports, [$port,$status]; # borrowing syntax from perl again
> >     include ports;
> > }
> > class ports{
> >     use the array that has been created by instantiating port multiple
> > times }
> 
> Seems to me like this should be a native type and not something definable 
> within Puppet.  I''m really opposed to the idea of Puppet becoming 
> yet-another-scripting-language.
Testify, brother!

- Matt

-- 
When the revolution comes, they won''t be able to FIND the wall.
		-- Brian Kantor, in the Monastery