[chef-dev] Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: ::File notation

[Sascha Bates < >]

To give a newb perspective: When I first encountered this I was horribly confused and didn't know what was wrong. But I went out and read a few other LWRPs and found a pattern that worked for me and just used it without really understanding.

I wasn't annoyed though. I just figured I was dumb and that's how you had to use File in resources.

By the way, I'd like to thank Fletcher and Bryan for writing great resources and libraries in chef-rvm and ark which were my main early references when writing lwrp code.

Sascha

Jamie Winsor wrote:

" type="cite">

I think a small paragraph regarding constant name-spacing in Ruby would suffice in the "just enough Ruby for Chef guide". This should be accompanied with an example of a frequent gotcha; i.e. File.read.

This was of no surprise or annoyance to me when I began working with Chef because I had been programming Ruby for years beforehand. If I hadn't known how Ruby constant name-spacing worked I probably would have been quite aggravated and this and it would have been compounded further since testing cookbooks is now just becoming a reality.

-- 

Jamie Winsor

@resetexistence

https://github.com/reset

On Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Adam Jacob wrote:

I felt the same way – I have no desire to see Resource and Provider tacked on the end of everything.

 

Adam

 

From: Jesse Campbell [ ">mailto: ]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 2:27 PM
To: Jay Feldblum
Cc: Chef Dev
Subject: [chef-dev] Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: ::File notation

 

Why wouldn't you then call it Chef::ProviderChef::FileProviderChef and Chef::ResourceChef::FileResourceChef?

It just seems a bit redundant... perhaps it would be better if LWRPs did not automatically inherit the Chef::Provider and Chef::Resource namespaces?

 

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Jay Feldblum < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Adam,

 

I suspect that this is an annoyance for programmers who are fluent in Ruby and who want to write providers.

 

For example, if a provider requires reading a cache file in load_current_resource, the normal expectation is that File.read(cache_file_path) should work. It works in most other Ruby code, and programmers who are fluent in Ruby will have written that same line hundreds of times before. There is a perfectly sensible and easily comprehended reason why it doesn't this time, and there is a perfectly sensible and easily comprehended workaround with either ::File or IO.

 

This is not a blocker. But it is a speed bump.

 

In the name of avoiding all such speed bumps, the resource class could have been named `Chef::Resource::FileResource` and the provider class `Chef::Provider::FileProvider`. The same pattern could have been extended to all resource and provider classes as well.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Adam Jacob < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Yeah – I’m not clear this is a problem in the vast majority of cases.

 

Adam