Should we namespace our facts?
- Trevor Vaughan
- Dylan Cochran (Unlicensed)
- Chris Tessmer
Add your comments directly to the page. Include links to any relevant research, data, or feedback.
Background
As users begin to mix more publicly available modules into SIMP systems, we run the risk of fact conflicts where the first one that gets loaded wins. This is quite likely to cause unexpected consequences in both our code and the code of other people.
Our legacy facts can't be deprecated until SIMP 7 since they are so widely used but, if we decide to namespace, then we should migrate all of our core components as quickly as possible.
Relevant data
This question was posted to the #puppet-dev chat room and was met with general approval with the suggestion that one of the options in the table below be used.
An additional option of <author_name>_<fact_name> was presented but discounted as unable to be migrated to a new module maintainer without causing widespread issues and so is not listed.
Options considered
| Option 0: | Option 1: | Option 2: | Option 3: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description | simp_<fact_name> | <modulename>_<fact_name> (single_underscore) | <modulename>__<fact_name> (double underscore) | <module_name>-<fact_name> |
| Pros and cons |
|
|
|
|
| Estimated cost | SMALL | SMALL | SMALL | SMALL |
| Votes | 2 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
| Vote Summary |
Easy to understand
The hard-coded