[Mageia-sysadm] Questions about puppet config

[Sébastien Kurtzemann]

2011/7/19 Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org>
>
> Le mardi 19 juillet 2011 à 02:54 +0200, sebelee at free.fr a écrit :
> > After regarding a little bit the puppet configuration, I have some questions about the current puppet configuration.
> >
> >
> > 1) Why using both subscribe() and notify() metaparameters ?
>
> Mainly a question of style.
>
> You can use the graph feature to see everything :
> http://bitfieldconsulting.com/puppet-dependency-graphs
> ( except that we do not provides them purely by slack )
>
> I guess a simple task to learn puppet would be to make them usable by
> everybody. But I can also do it quite fast, if you need to look to the
> graphs.
>
>
Okay thanks for this information about viewing graphs dependency ;)

> > 2) In the same idea, after reading the beginning of the book "Pro Puppet", the author
> > describes a sort of Best Pratice for managing puppet's module.
>
> This seems quite overkill for simple module, and I am not sure it will
> help to reduce so much the complexity on complex module ( such as sympa
> or subversion ). While I would agree that we should have some shared
> style to help rereading the code, I also think this is one issue that
> can trigger some heated arguments. Despite being annoyed every day by
> the mix of space and tabs in subversion or buildsystem, I never pushed
> for uniformisation there, but maybe that should be done.
>
Ok

> > 3) With this schema, we can also classify specials functionnalites or class by creating one or more extra file(s)
> >
> >
> > I'm just a beginner with puppet and I don't know if this a method can work
> > for a production environnement day after day...
>
> It greatly depend on what you mean by "work" :)
>
With "work", I mean not breaking the current architecture :P

> I do not see obvious reasons it would break something, and to me, the
> question is just to know if too much division will really improve
> comprehension.
>
> It is like java. I like the java layering and separation of modules, at
> least on paper, it is quite clean. In practice, there is this feeling of
> awful complexity due to the separation and heavy use of object
> hierarchy :/
>
> I can understand your frustration of having to read a large corpus of
> code/configuration without having this feeling of a clean base ( ie,
> different conventions, lack of style, etc ). And we do have some need
> for cleaning and consistency for sure.
>
> But on the other hand, having a too rigid structure of things may have
> been too constraining for a small team, to start.
>
I'm not afraid to read large corpus ;)
But it's more difficult to start and understand how things works if we
had different conventions and structures all over modules.
And I completely agree with you that a too rigid structure may constraint team.

So starting to send you some patches for cleaning and uniform modules
structures will be a good thing now ? Or maybe later ? Or Not ?

> > But i think instead of having all the module's classes in a same file, split them
> > into specifics items would be more easy for understanding and also give more granularity.
>
> The granularity is already achieved at class level, and I think we are
> quite good at this point. Too much would maybe be over-engineering at
> this point, we only have 7 servers :)
>
Yep

> --
> Michael Scherer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mageia-sysadm mailing list
> Mageia-sysadm at mageia.org
> https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-sysadm

--
Sébastien Kurtzemann