[chef] Re: Re: should complex lwrps like ark be factored out into separate gems?

[Bryan Berry < >]

Paul I am generally inclined to agree w/ you, however I recently
contributed to the collectd-dsl gem
https://github.com/pyr/collectd-dsl which defines a lovely dsl for
collectd configuration files. Ark could be useful to people trying to
automate the download-unpack-configure-make-install dance outside of
chef.  I also wonder if the separation from chef could make it more
modular and easier to test. However, I am just speculating there.

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Paul Mooring 
<
 >
 wrote:
> I think lwrps and gems have pretty different use cases.  You do have a
> substantial amount of code in private functions that could be broken out
> into a gem, but much of it is still tightly coupled with Chef.  The real
> question is would the benefits of having a general Ruby library (via a
> gem) be enough to merit the work of decoupling your code from Chef and
> refactoring the lwrp to use a gem.
> --
> Paul Mooring
> Systems Engineer and Customer Advocate
>
> www.opscode.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Berry 
> <
 >
> Reply-To: 
> "
 "
>  
> <
 >
> Date: Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:59 AM
> To: 
> "
 "
>  
> <
 >
> Subject: [chef] should complex lwrps like ark be factored out into
> separate gems?
>
>>As my ark LWRP becomes increasingly complex, I start to wonder whether
>>I should factor it out into a separate ruby gem. What would be the
>>pros and cons of this approach? An aspiring rubyist wants to know.
>>
>>https://github.com/bryanwb/chef-ark
>>
>
>