On 25.01.2017 13:06, Alex Kavanagh wrote: > Hi Tilman > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Tilman Baumann > <tilman.baum...@canonical.com <mailto:tilman.baum...@canonical.com>> wrote: > > At this point I'm pretty sure that this is a bug or undocumented > feature. > > > The peer relation of a subordinate charm only has one conversation. > Despite scope being 'global' in metadata.yaml and the RelationBase class > being scope = scope.UNIT. > > > Shouldn't the metadata.yaml ALSO be 'unit' scope if you want individual > conversations without sharing the data between all the subordinate > units? global would imply that all of the relations have the same > data? The subordinate to principal relation will be unit (anyway), but > the peer is just like any other relation, except here it is between the > subordinate's on multiple machines.
The naming is quite confusing here. There is a bug for that. https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/1499900 Container in this case means it 'converses' with the other services on the same unit. Global means, it can talk to everything. This should really be unified. The naming in reactive seems more intuitive. But in the end reactive is a layer on-top of charms, I guess reactive should have stayed with the established nomenclature here. -- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
