Relation addresses

[William Reade]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Andrew Wilkins <
andrew.wilkins at canonical.com> wrote:
>
> If that's the case, why do we not just require charms to implement an
> address-changed hook to update the relation setting then?
> That way we don't break existing proxy charms, but other charms won't be
> fixed until they implement that hook. We'd have to keep the initial
> private-address value for backwards compatibility at least initially.
>
> So how about this as an alternative proposal:
>  - Add relation-address-changed, but don't add automatic updating of
> private-address (after initial setting).
>  - Continue to use "unit-get private-address". When we have networks, then
> we can add "-r" and have it default to the current relation.
>
> Pros:
>  - Nothing to do on upgrade, no messy error-prone logic
>  - No network specific bits added until they're added
>  - No charms will be broken any more than they already are
> Cons:
>  - Existing non-proxy charms will need to be changed to take advantage of
> the fix
>

Still not ideal, but model-wise it'd work for me. Also covers the odd weird
case where an interface uses "host" instead of "private-address". Kapil?
Charmers? I understand that the extra work is unattractive, but I really
don't want to depend on racy scary magic, and I can't shake the feeling
that automatic rewrites will always take us there.

Cheers
William
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20140620/5535f6b7/attachment.html>