|author||Joey Hess||2019-11-11 13:41:17 -0400|
|committer||Joey Hess||2019-11-11 13:41:17 -0400|
1 files changed, 21 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/forum/Conceptual_:_HostName_vs._Domain/comment_1_6a80853161714e19cdae006ec19097fb._comment b/doc/forum/Conceptual_:_HostName_vs._Domain/comment_1_6a80853161714e19cdae006ec19097fb._comment
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+ subject="""comment 1"""
+I think LetsEncrypt's use of Domain is intentional; a certificate is for a
+domain and you can't get one for eg a bare IP address or an unqualified
+AFAICS, Domain is a FQDN.
+(Propellor.Property.Hostname has to deal with details of /etc/hosts,
+but it does not actually use the Domain type anywhere.)
+More generally, it's common for a propellor module to have some
+`type Foo = String` that's only used to make parameters more self-documenting
+and doesn't have any particular meaning beyond whatever string a Property might
+use. One shouldn't worry if two modules have data types that seem to
+overlap in content when that's all they're used for. Of course it's nicer to
+have less stringy data types, via ADTs or smart constructors, when possible.