[chef] Re: Re: recipe, recipes and loaded_recipes (CHEF-3645)

[Adam Jacob < >]

Searching against any key is no more expensive than any other - whoever
told you that is wrong.

Adam

On 12/4/12 8:30 PM, "Julian C. Dunn" 
<
 >
 wrote:

>
>
>
>We search for "role" only because I read somewhere that searching against
>"roles" is much more expensive. But it has bitten us before.
>
>While I wouldn't mind if "role" went away, I'd want to know that the
>performance of searching for "roles" wasn't going to be awful.
>
>- Julian
>
>
>On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Bryan McLellan
><
 >
> wrote:
>
>Do you ever search for [role] or [recipe] instead of [roles] and
>[recipes]? Why? Would you be traumatized if these went away (because
>they're confusing) in Chef 11 and you had to look through the nodes
>run_list?
>
>
>Do you use node[:recipes] and run_state[:seen_recipes] in a cookbooks to
>determine if a recipe is in the expanded run list but hasn't been seen
>yet? Would you hold it against me if node[:recipes] contained the recipes
>that had been seen/loaded so far (and
> the final list of all recipes at the end of the run, including ones from
>include_recipe), instead of the expanded run_list?
>
>
>Thoughts?
>
>
>Bryan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>[ Julian C. Dunn 
><
 >
>          * Sorry, I'm    ]
>[ WWW: http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian    * only Web 1.0  ;]
>[ gopher://sdf.org/1/users/keymaker/ ;<http://sdf.org/1/users/keymaker/>
>        * compliant!    ]
>[ PGP: 91B3 7A9D 683C 7C16 715F 442C 6065 D533 FDC2 05B9       ]
>