[chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: Chained dependencies management

[Jay Levitt < >]

Kevin Nuckolls wrote:
> My opinion (and I don't know if it's a very popular one), is that
> include_recipe is an anti-pattern when used between cookbooks. It deeply
> couples the implementation details of two separate cookbooks. When using
> open sourced cookbooks that use include_recipe, you often are required to
> use the specific cookbooks that one was written against.

Does that apply to internal cookbooks as well?  I've found that I'm 
increasingly refactoring, say, role[base] into a single run-list item that 
calls recipe[mysite::role-base]. This lets me use the Ruby DSL, LWRPs, 
normal-level attributes, and anything other API the "real" cookbook provides.

I hate the un-DRYness of specifying both include_recipe('postgresql') in 
mysite/roles/role-base.rb and depends('postgresql') in mysite/metadata.rb, 
but the purely declarative role syntax just doesn't let me do a lot of things...

Jay