On 08/08/2011 10:31 PM, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 14:44 -0400, Greg Blomquist wrote:
>> You mention output parameters. Can there be more that one? Is the status
>> of the execution a unique parameter?
> There can be many. The output parameters are more in relation to the
> system and not the service or script outputs. The output parameters are
> currently captured only through facter.
I think it's fine to use factor to capture a few key data pieces about
the instance independent of assembly XML, e.g. IP address, fqdn,
domainname, and OS. (Fine, with the caveat that facter introduces a dep
on Ruby in the instance; I don't have an issue with that, others might
For output parameters, it would be simpler to adopt a convention that
the script should provide these on its stdout (or in a well-known file,
or a file set through the environment) For example, script needs to
print a valid YAML file on its stdout, where the toplevel data structure
is a hash, whose keys are the names of the output params.
Involving facter in the process just complicates things for the user; if
they want to produce some custom piece of data as an output param,
they'd need to hook into facter to do that.
FWIW... on the katello side we have followed the model of require python
only until you get to real config management, then you require ruby. I
would assume for the size, we would want to keep Audrey to python only.
Even if JON/Katello inject Java or Ruby later.
But.. this is a religious statement. I am fine moving more to ruby.