On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Matthew Williams < [email protected]> wrote: > > Any default-hook that deviated from this pattern could find itself being > run multiple times in succession - I wonder if that might be confusing/ > unexpected to a charm author? >
It'll run multiple times in succession regardless, independent of switching -- but, yes, unless it switches it'll always do the same thing :). I don't *think* it's unexpected that we'd run default-hook once for each missing hook, supplying the substituted hook name every time. > Gustavo's observation about hooks that the charm might no know about yet > means that the else clause is absolutely required, I wonder if that's > obvious to someone who's new to charming? > I'm pretty much adamant that we shouldn't even run new hooks, or expose new tools, unless the charm explicitly declares it knows about them. But I do imagine that many implementations will want the else anyway: they don't need to provide an implementation for every single hook anyway. Cheers William
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
