The charms I maintain and write are in Python and use charm-helpers. I have a file called hooks.py and a bunch of symlinks pointing to it. Presumably this change would push me to rename hooks.py to default-hook.
The issue I have is that then I cannot (easily) test that file, because it's not a valid Python module name. So I'd end up still having hooks.py and a symlink from default-hook to that. I'm not sure that this fix would then alleviate the pain point... On 20 August 2014 23:43, Tim Penhey <tim.pen...@canonical.com> wrote: > On 21/08/14 02:50, Nate Finch wrote: > > I would expect a lot of people will implement their charms as a single > > script (especially given the number of charms we've seen implemented > > that way even with minimal support for it). If the special hook file is > > called "default-hook", it makes those single-script charms seem like > > less of a hack than if the single file is called "missing-hook". It > > would also makes more sense to a new charm author, I think. > > +1 to default-hook > -1 to missing-hook > > As Aaron mentioned, it isn't missing if it is there. > > I agree that default-hook is more likely to make sense to newcomers. > > Tim > > > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
