[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is this quirky for a simple copy, editfiles operation?

From: Tim Nelson
Subject: Re: Is this quirky for a simple copy, editfiles operation?
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 10:13:23 +1000 (EST)

On Thu, 12 May 2005, Brendan Strejcek wrote:

Mark Burgess wrote:

It will be replaced with an action list, so that you can switch things
on and off, but the need for an order will go away.

I think that even this is unnecessarily complicated. If you want
to switch an action off, you can wrap it with a class that won't
be defined, or just comment it out. An action list sounds like an
"opt-in" situation, which seems to violate the principle of least
surprise to me (that is, if one writes an action, one expects it to be
implemented). What might be more useful is an anti-action list (the
"opt-out" analogue). So, rather than have the behavior be "do nothing
unless told to," it could be "do everything unless told not to." This
could be similar to the current cfagent options "--no-processes,"
"--no-copy," etc. though it would allow that information to be
encoded in the policy.

It seems to me that such exclusion will not be the common case though.

The above makes sense to me. But say I have things that are in a particular order at the moment, how will I be able to ensure that they're still ordered with cfengine 3?

Maybe instead I should be asking, is there a summary of the features we'll be looking at for cfengine 3 that I can read (which might answer these questions)?


Tim Nelson
Server Administrator
WebAlive Technologies Global
Level 1 Innovation Building, Digital Harbour
1010 LaTrobe Street
Docklands, Melbourne, Vic, 3008
Phone: +61 3 9934 0812
Fax: +61 3 9934 0899
E-mail: address@hidden

"Your Business, Your Web, Your Control"

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]