Re: Does relation scopes need to match?

The original intention of conversations and scopes was to simply certain interface interaction patterns where it may not be relevant or useful on your end of the relation to deal with each remote unit individually. An example might be if the remote service is expected to have a leader which

Re: Is base64 really the best way to use complex config values

On 08.06.2017 13:39, Stuart Bishop wrote: > It is only popular because people keep cargo culting it > into their charms when it is unnecessary. I always call it out in > reviews and get people to switch to unencoded text. On the topic of cargo-culting. I'm re-writing a charm right now. Partly

Re: How to count relations?

Alex, I should clarify, conv.scope should only be None if the class's scope is GLOBAL. Otherwise, it should be the name of the service or unit. If the scope is defined as SERVICE or UNIT and the conv.scope is None, it was a bug, yes (but let's work to get rid of the confusing idea of scopes and

Re: Is base64 really the best way to use complex config values

On 7 June 2017 at 23:22, Tilman Baumann wrote: > I see a lot of charms use base64 values in config parameters. Especially > when the values are stuff like custom templates. > > Is this really the way to go? It may avoid shell quoting hell for > parameters set via