active
>>>> approach is quite new and feedback like this is very valuable. I understand
>>>> the frustration, I've had similar experiences with the reactive framework.
>>>> I think that there is still significant work needed in both `charm build`
>>>>
;> everyone will be willing to do that. The Juju team is also working on
>>> better documentation, and I'm positive that it will eventually catch up.
>>> Feedback like yours helps them figure out where the pain-points are.
>>>
>>> Now for your questions. I thin
gt; Now for your questions. I think I have a pretty good grasp of how the
>> framework operates. For anyone closer to the code, feel free to chime in
>> and correct me where needed.
>>
>> Do I need a placeholder in the hooks directory?
>>
>>
>> Yes! and no...
gt;> dive in the code to figure out what was happening, and I don't think
>>> everyone will be willing to do that. The Juju team is also working on
>>> better documentation, and I'm positive that it will eventually catch up.
>>> Feedback like yours helps them figure out where t
y?
>
>
> Yes! and no... If reactive framework does not get called when a hook runs,
> it cannot execute handlers. The placeholder calls the reactive framework,
> the reactive framework executes the handler. However! You should not have
> to add these placeholders manually. `charm
hooks of all interfaces that a Charm has. In your first
implementation, *you did not use an interface layer, so `charm build` did
not know what placeholders it had to add*. So now that you added the http
interface layer, these placeholders should be present, and the commented
code should now work
Hello folks,
This is not a complaint more a story of how this afternoon has gone.
I'm writing a gitlab charm, in doing so marco suggested that we add some
hooks to optionally offload some of the services, like web server and
database elsewhere should the user desire. Very sane plan, I thought.
