Relation's need config too

[Clint Byrum]

Excerpts from Brandon Holtsclaw's message of 2012-07-20 07:02:09 -0700:
> > In staging for example, we have the same postgresql instance handling
> 
> > > all the shards, so there we'd have:
> > >
> > > juju deploy pgsql staging-db
> > > juju deploy service1
> > > juju deploy service2
> > > juju add-relation staging-db service1 shard_id=1
> > > juju add-relation staging-db service1 shard_id=2
> > > juju add-relation staging-db service2 shard_id=1
> > > juju add-relation staging-db service2 shard_id=2
> >
> > This would be one way to do it, but the same idea might work here too:
> >
> >     juju set staging-db shard-id=1,2
> >
> >
> >
> Would that not put it in a different context though, e.g. its a
> config-change context that way and not a relation join/part/leave etc.,
> which seems like it may be worse or minimum not ideal.
> But I may be missing another subtlety somewhere too ...
> 

Yes, thats the essence of the problem. We are able to solve these issues
with Juju as it is now, but in a very clunky way by matching up configs
on either side of a relation. It seems natural then that we would have
a way to simply attach configs to the relation context.