Yes: goal state could, I think, address this case. I'd really appreciate more discussion on that in the "Feature request: show running relations in juju status" thread -- I remain reasonably certain that neither "goal" nor "active" is quite sufficient in isolation, but would appreciate confirmation/pushback/whatever.
This case makes me think it'd need a slight extension regardless, though, in that we don't currently tell units when they themselves are meant to be shutting down. (Coincidentally, seeing relation-broken in a peer relation *does* tell you that you're shutting down, but it's not very helpful because you find out so late.) (that is: I think we should tell units when they are dying; and also when their service is dying. This demands both omnipresent state -- an env var, or something -- and a hook or two to notify of the change in either; but I'm not sure we can usefully distinguish between scaling-down and shutting-down without knowing both, even if one of them is communicated via goal-state) Cheers William On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Stuart Bishop <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18 December 2014 at 12:15, John Meinel <[email protected]> wrote: >> Stub- AFAIK there isn't something today, though William might know better. >> >> William, does your Active/Goal proposal address this? Having a Goal of 0 >> units would be a pretty clear indication that the service is shutting down. > > Ooh... and that would be useful for plenty of other things too. For > example, I can avoid rebalancing the replication ring until the goal > number of units exists. > > -- > Stuart Bishop <[email protected]> -- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
