On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Tilman Baumann < tilman.baum...@canonical.com> wrote:
> > > 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. > Ah, yes, of course, the difference between charms.reactive conversation scopes and juju scopes. I can feel some experimentation and a new blog post coming on ... Thanks Alex. -- Alex Kavanagh - Software Engineer Cloud Dev Ops - Solutions & Product Engineering - Canonical Ltd
-- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
