Open Stack

On 31/03/16 18:10, Zane Bitter wrote:
>
> I'm in favour of some sort of variable-based implementation for a few
> reasons. One is that (5) seems to come up fairly regularly in a complex
> deployment like TripleO. Another is that Fn::If feels awkward compared
> to get_variable.

I actually have to revise this last part after reviewing the patches. 
get_variable can't replace Fn::If, because we'd still need to handle 
stuff of the form:

     some_property: {if: [{get_variable: some_var},
                          {get_resource: res1},
                          {get_resource: res2}]

where the alternatives can't come from a variable because they contain 
resource references and we have said we'd constrain variables to be static.

In fact the intrinsic functions that could be allowed in the first 
argument to the {if: } function would have to constrained in the same 
way as the constraint field in the resource, because we should only 
validate and obtain dependencies from _one_ of the alternates, so we 
need to be able to determine which one statically and not have to wait 
until the actual value is resolved. This is possibly the strongest 
argument for keeping on the cfn implementation course.

cheers,
Zane.