open question: should the methods on juju.Conn take a string or a type

[William Reade]

On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 13:27 +0100, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
> At the same time, adding methods like conn.Service that match
> precisely what state.Service returns feels like spinning wheels
> unnecessarily at the moment. I also disagree with the idea of having
> service names rather than properly typed service values. We don't want
> to be converting back and forth between type and name when using our
> own APIs, nor do we want to be converting from name to type on every
> single method that takes a service as an argument in Conn. Types are
> also nice both for documentation and static verifications, in cases
> like this.
> 
> I hope this clarifies the situation a bit. Aren't we mostly aligned?

I think so, yeah: I'd imagined it to be the layer just underneath an
almost unimaginably thin external API, which I think still applies; I
just took my interpretation about what was therefore proper a bit
far :).

> 
> 
> gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net