On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:08 AM, William Reade <william.re...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Matthew Williams > <matthew.willi...@canonical.com> wrote: >> Gustavo's observation about hooks that the charm might no know about yet >> means that the else clause is absolutely required, I wonder if that's >> obvious to someone who's new to charming? > > > I'm pretty much adamant that we shouldn't even run new hooks, or expose new > tools, unless the charm explicitly declares it knows about them. But I do > imagine that many implementations will want the else anyway: they don't need > to provide an implementation for every single hook anyway.
But we're talking about "default-hook", which is supposed to run when things are missing? Actually, we should probably call this "missing-hook" as originally suggested, to make it more obvious that this is being called because some arbitrary hook was not found. It'll probably convey the importance handling unknowns in a sane way more clearly. 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
