charm audit summary

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:03 PM, William Reade
<william.reade at canonical.com> wrote:
> Fair enough, that is indeed nice -- but in principle, AIUI, the
> principal is not required to know anything about the subordinate, and
> the sort of mechanism you describe assumes a principal which does.

It doesn't require when it doesn't require (apologies for the
tautology, but I'm not sure about how to word this in a better way;
hopefully the point is clear).

> We would indeed need to change things around a little to come up with a
> model that worked well... but if it doesn't immediately seem like a good
> idea I'm happy to drop it.

I don't think I see how it's viable at all to avoid in important
cases. If we state that hooks are serial, one charm can block the
execution of the other. This is a non-solvable problem that sits at
the foundation of the proposal.


gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net