[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: Mark Burgess
Subject: Re: Is this quirky for a simple copy, editfiles operation?
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 09:40:21 +0200

I have been deliberately avoiding answering this because I am only
keeping my head above water right now.

I'm sorry you're disappointed. I see several mechanisms working

1) dependencies
2) priorities
3) randomization

More info will be forthcoming when the time comes. Hopefully I'll be
able to make a start on 3 over the summer.


On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 17:02 -0600, Ed Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 13:35, Mark Burgess wrote:
> > In version 3 I hope that all of this
> > will be handled more elegantly. 
> Another tantalizing, yet mysterious, intimation of better things to
> come.  One might start thinking you had a background in marketing!
> Perhaps my concerns will be moot when cfengine 3 changes our current
> paradigms, but when discussions about the ordering of actions in
> cfengine become discussions about dependencies, I am really
> disappointed.  While there is some overlap, they are different problems
> really, and the change in semantics really changes the implications and
> considerations.  The last time dependencies came up as a solution to the
> limitations of the current actionsequence implentation, it appeared to
> me to be more of a nod to notions of PC-ness (Programming Correct-ness),
> than directed at solving the problems of system administrators, i.e.,
> making cfengine even more flexible and easy to use.
> Brendan's [extremely well-articulated and demonstrated] examples for
> using class dependencies are interesting, but I'm not convinced that's
> the answer to actionsequence limitations.  Imagine trying to implement
> your current actionsequence in terms of class dependencies!  Granted, we
> might not care to reinvent the actionsequence, and sequence might not
> matter for much, even most, of what cfengine does.  (But knowing it is
> determinate, and how, is often useful and important.)  
> To me, it would be vastly easier, more powerful, and more flexible, to
> simply assign a priority to an action (or not, if it doesn't matter),
> and know immediately how it relates to ALL other actions, rather than
> have to define any relationships individually.  I don't have to worry
> about breaking dependencies, or finding/fixing/maintaining relationships
> across many config files.   It's easy to understand at a glance for the
> human and the machine parser.   Multiple passes aren't required...  (And
> concerns, if there are any, about performance optimizations that a
> dependency-based approach might offer, in my typical <10 second cfagent
> run, would be way at the bottom of my list.)
> Frankly, I prefer the status quo, to a solution based on defining
> dependencies, at least as I understand the idea now.  
> -Ed
> _______________________________________________
> Help-cfengine mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

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