I agree, but this would be easily fixed by making on_failure a resource property that takes a block as an argument instead of being a resource itself.- cassiano
On Monday, March 4, 2013 at 16:33, Kevin Keane Subscription wrote:I didn't follow this discussion from the start, just saw this. Forgive me if I'm way off base here, but at first glance, this seems very wrong to me, the "it just feels strange" type of wrong.Isn't the philosophy of Chef that resources should describe the final, desired, state of the system? This resource just feels "procedural" rather than "declarative".
Or am I way off on this?-----Original Message-----From: Adam Jacob [ " target="_blank">mailto: ]Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:13 AMSubject: [chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CHEF-3930: Run apt-get update automagically if apt-get install fails
Why don't we make this a resource?package "totally-sucks-devel"on_failure "run apt-get update" domatch /^package/notifies :run, "execute[apt-get-update]"endWhere match is a regular _expression_ that looks for names of resources.AdamOn 3/4/13 9:06 AM, "Bryan McLellan" < " target="_blank"> > wrote:On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Jesse Campbell < " target="_blank"> > wrote:What about extending the current handler approach? Add the ability tocatch a failed resource (by name) and retry it, just like you canwith a begin/rescue.I like the concept of having an exception handler be tied to a resourceor provider, or at least be able to determine what resource or providercaused the exception, do some bits and retry.Bryan
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.