On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Nate Finch <[email protected]> wrote: > I think to answer most of these questions, we need more information about > what the existing charms do, and input from the charmers themselves. > > Here's the info from Marco: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/8100649/
Thanks. Looking at some entries from that list I can definitely see how single-hook would be useful, and it looks like it would also work well with the defined semantics. > Numbers: > > 56/162 charms use symlinks > 6 of those are only partially symlinked > 50 of those use symlinks for all hooks Given those numbers, and the pattern described above, I'd definitely try to have the enforced single hook model you described last, which must be explicitly enabled to work, and where everything is run only through it when it is indeed enabled. Easier to implement, and to understand as well. Addressing Aaron's remark, the hook might be called "dispatch" so it that conveys the intended semantics rather than its uniqueness, and the metadata flag "dispatch-hook: <bool>". gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net -- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
