Re: Ordering and cfengine 3 (was RE: Is this quirky for a simple copy, editfiles operation?)

[Ed Brown]

On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 12:21, Brendan Strejcek wrote:
> We could do both. :-) It might add more robustness to cfengine if
> unsatisfied dependencies were preserved between runs. What if the
> cfengine run is cut short before it completes all the necessary
> passes? I don't think that we can assume that cfagent will be able to
> complete all of it's tasks before being cut short by an admin running
> "/etc/init.d/cfengine stop" or some timeout causing aborts.

This brings me around again to how the concept of 'dependencies' is
striking off in a very different direction than required by the simpler
problem of adding flexibility to sequencing of actions.  It's a
feature-add really, and raises a host of new questions.  For example,
there is no 'unsatisfied actionsequence" problem, precisely because
there are no dependencies.  

As for setting state for an 'unsatisfied' dependency, what do you do if
that class is NOT set in subsequent runs, perform the action anyway? 
What do you do if it IS set again, perform the action twice? 

-Ed