Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add variable module support to web_app definition #428

Closed

Conversation

majuscule
Copy link

This patch allows a web_app user to specify the modules loaded with the application instead of forcing the hardcoded list. Supports mod_ and mod_modname references, as well as wrapper-cookbook::module_name.

@svanzoest
Copy link
Contributor

I think we should just remove the modules all together. The only reason they are included is because the default template references directives provided by those modules.

I think the default template should be revisited and made significantly more minimal and rely on individuals to provide a template for the more complex cases.

thoughts?

@drpebcak
Copy link
Contributor

drpebcak commented Jul 3, 2016

I always thought that would be good, but there seems to be an awful lot of resistance to making the default template LESS configurable...

Copy link
Contributor

@josephholsten josephholsten left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Absolutely not. As defines must be called from code, users already have a wrapper cookbook. So anyone using this can simply add the desired mods in their wrapper.

So far as I can tell this does not add any functionality, just abstraction. If there's something this allows users to do that can't be done any other way, I'm happy to re-review.

@svanzoest svanzoest closed this Apr 26, 2017
@lock
Copy link

lock bot commented Jul 24, 2018

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.

@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jul 24, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants