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?
From: Adam Jacob
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:13 AM
Subject: [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?
on_failure "run apt-get update" do
notifies :run, "execute[apt-get-update]"
Where match is a regular expression that looks for names of resources.
On 3/4/13 9:06 AM, "Bryan McLellan"
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Jesse Campbell
What about extending the current handler approach? Add the ability toI like the concept of having an exception handler be tied to a resource
catch a failed resource (by name) and retry it, just like you can
with a begin/rescue.
or provider, or at least be able to determine what resource or provider
caused the exception, do some bits and retry.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.