[chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: any plan for partial templates in Chef?

[Bryan Berry < >]

hard for me to say if I might use a partial document as a standalone document in other circumstances .

the circumstances where I personally would use a partial

haproxy.cfg

jboss ginormous xml configs

tomcat   server.xml, context.xml,  web.xml

only w/ tomcat is there the possibility that some of the "fragments" could stand alone but I am not sure. Even then, a standalone fragment  would need the extra decorator

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>

to actually exist on its own

I think I prefer kallistec's method signature, however I would also want the ability to see all the variables passed to the parent template unless  intentionally overwritten

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Daniel DeLeo < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Bryan Berry wrote:

this is super exciting!

I do not have any rails experience and I personally find the "_#{partial_name}" pretty intuitive. It says to me that the template doesn't exist independent of its parent. Also, I see partials as becoming an advanced feature that n00bs wouldn't find or need until they are farther along.

Thanks for sharing your opinions. The various ways that Chef encodes information in strings, filenames, etc. worries me, but as an expert I don't have any way to objectively gauge the impact on a less experienced user.

One question, though: is there a use case where you would want a template to be both a partial and a non-partial? Perhaps you have one system that supports "conf.d/" style config and another that doesn't? I suppose that could be resolved by setting the source parameter in the template resource to "_ususally_a_partial.conf.erb", however.

Any thoughts on the method signature?

-- 

Daniel DeLeo