[mgmt] Why CheckApply, and not Check Apply ?

[Julien Pivotto]

On 09 Feb 20:12, Julien Pivotto wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> I am wondering why the choice has been made to have a CheckApply
> command, and not one Check and one Apply command?
> 
> Even the name of the function look like it should have been two
> different functions.
> 
> 
> what do you think about that? why is there one function to do two
> separated things?
> 
> Is that okay that for my resource I internally split that in 2?
> 
> Thanks!

It turns out that CheckApply is needed because you need one CheckApply /
field.

e.g.:

File CheckApply() {
    CheckApply(mode)
    CheckApply(owner)
    CheckApply(content)
}


-- 
 (o-    Julien Pivotto
 //\    Open-Source Consultant
 V_/_   Inuits - https://www.inuits.eu
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 213 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/mgmtconfig-list/attachments/20170210/8037d50e/attachment.sig>