charms.reactive bi-weekly catch-up

[Menno Smits]

On 26 April 2017 at 02:37, Cory Johns <cory.johns at canonical.com> wrote:

>
> Another aspect of that idea is that we should formalize the notion that
> handlers react to *changes* in flags, rather than the flags themselves, and
> the "changed" state of flags should not be tied to hook invocations and
> persist until an actual, meaningful change happens to that flag.  This
> would remove the surprising current behavior that handlers are reinvoked
> repeatedly as long as their conditions match, simply because a hook
> triggered even if it didn't represent anything meaningful to the particular
> handler.
>

​This sounds ​like a great improvement. Thanks for the update.

- Menno
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju/attachments/20170426/c563d941/attachment.html>