Re: Template Nodes considered harmful

On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:07 PM, Digant C Kasundra wrote:
>
> Yeah, more likely, there should be a class called webserver that  
> would be
> inherited or included as needed per node.  The whole template thing  
> didn't
> pan out like we thought it would.

'webserver' is more of a canonical class, so it doesn't make sense to  
talk about a node inheriting from it -- the node isn't usually going  
to change anything about the behaviour of the webserver class.

I usually draw the line like this:  If you're only including classes  
and setting variables, then you've got a node; if you're defining  
resources, then you've got a class.

I know it's not a hard line, but that's the way it is.

> nodes.pp was what Luke originally setup when he come out on a  
> contract to
> help jumpstart our Puppet deployment but that may not be what  
> others have
> done.  I'm actually planning to publish a 2.0 doc of the best  
> practice as
> much has changed since the original draft.  This is an evolving  
> product and
> with it, practices must evolve.  I'm always interested in hearing how
> others are getting things done with Puppet.

It kinda doesn't matter whether one has a separate nodes file or  
what; it's mostly a question of local policy and requirements.  If  
you have a lot of nodes and many people need to add them, then it  
might make sense; if not, then not.

  --
  My favorite was a professor at a University I Used To Be Associated
  With who claimed that our requirement of a non-alphabetic character in
  our passwords was an abridgement of his freedom of speech.
                  -- Jacob Haller
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com