puppet settings vs. faces settings

[Chris Price]

Howdy folks... in the spirit of using this list for things other than github spam:

I have another topic that I'd like to get feedback on with regards to Puppet's settings management.  (I know, you've all been eagerly awaiting the next installment in this saga!)

Currently there is no mechanism in place that prevents developers who are using the new Faces API from defining command-line options with the same names as puppet's built-in settings.  This seems bad, and we're leaning towards adding some validation that would disallow this.

There are some existing built-in settings, though, that have really non-descript names that we probably don't want to disallow in Faces.  Case-in-point: the "--name" setting.

In the current HEAD of Puppet's master branch, if you have a "--name" option in your Face, it will collide with the built-in and you will get an error.  Our current thinking is that the use-cases for allowing this setting in Faces is more meaningful and important than the use-cases for using the built-in, and that there probably isn't or shouldn't be much code in the wild that relies on the built-in "name" setting.  Thus, we're leaning towards either renaming or removing this option from the built-in settings, and allowing it to be used in Faces.  We expect that if there are any cases where external code is relying on the built-in "name" setting, it is probably more correct to use the "run_mode" setting instead.

However, we are also concerned about making this change with such a short deprecation window.  An alternative option would be to deprecate the built-in "name" setting now (and print a warning with the new suggested behavior), and remove it in a future release; however, this would mean that any existing Faces that defined a "name" option would not be compatible with Telly until they were modified to rename their option.

Thoughts?  Suggestions?  Tomatoes that you'd like to chuck at me?

Thanks

Chris

[Jeff Weiss]

Chris

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

Bump. Any further input on this?

[Jeff McCune]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Jeff Weiss <jeff....@puppetlabs.com> wrote:
>
> Bump. Any further input on this?

Nope, Eric, James and R.I. addressed my perspective on this.

Ideally I'd like a much more easy to use way for face authors to
define their own settings and arguments, but that's likely a separate
issue to this one.

-Jeff

[Eric Sorenson]

Was this discussion off-list? I don't see any follow-ups on puppet-dev to Chris' original post.

[Chris Price]

Sorry about that--sent the e-mail to two different lists, one internal to puppet.  There were a couple of responses there, and the general consensus seems to be:

1) It should not cause too many waves to disallow faces from defining command-line options with the same names as built-in puppet options.

2) We intend to get rid of (or rename) the "name" setting in puppet core; among other benefits, this will allow Face authors to continue defining a "name" option for their Faces.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-dev/-/O2tVBWXVhY8J.

[Jeff McCune]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Eric Sorenson <eric.s...@me.com> wrote:

> Was this discussion off-list? I don't see any follow-ups on puppet-dev to
> Chris' original post.

Ah, yes. Evidently it was. Sorry about that.

-Jeff