On 08.06.2017 13:39, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> It is only popular because people keep cargo culting it
> into their charms when it is unnecessary. I always call it out in
> reviews and get people to switch to unencoded text.
On the topic of cargo-culting.
I'm re-writing a charm right now. Partly beca
On 7 June 2017 at 23:22, Tilman Baumann wrote:
> I see a lot of charms use base64 values in config parameters. Especially
> when the values are stuff like custom templates.
>
> Is this really the way to go? It may avoid shell quoting hell for
> parameters set via command line. (Usually trivial)
>
Hi Tilman
Just wanted to lend a +1 to this. Often config values also don't clearly
call out that they are needing base64 data, or do not generate an error
if non-compliant base64 is encountered. It's a layer of obfuscation that
doesn't really add any benefit, unless binary data needed to be passed
I see a lot of charms use base64 values in config parameters. Especially
when the values are stuff like custom templates.
Is this really the way to go? It may avoid shell quoting hell for
parameters set via command line. (Usually trivial)
But when set via --file option (which is clearly the better
