On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer < gustavo.nieme...@canonical.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:41 PM, William Reade > <william.re...@canonical.com> wrote: > > (out of interest, if started/stopped state were communicated to you any > > other way, would you still need these?) > > If you communicate events in a different way, you obviously won't need > your previous way of communicating events. > Sure -- but it's perhaps telling that (AFAIR) *all* the other state we expose via hook execution *is* accessible from any other hook via a hook tool. Was there a specific rationale for treating that particular bool differently? It seems that if we exposed that state, we'd have at least one more config-changed hook that acted as it's meant to ;p. Cheers William > > gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net >
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
