On 24.01.2017 16:56, Alex Kavanagh wrote: > Hi Tilman > > (I'm not an expert here, but was staring at the docs) > > I suspect that your peers relationship should be unit if each peer needs > to have it's own conversation? Otherwise, with a global scope, every > peer will overwrite the other's information? At least I'm wondering if > that what the scopes mean: see > here: https://jujucharms.com/docs/2.0/developer-layers-interfaces > > If that's completely wrong, then a) sorry for the noise, and b) do tell, > as it will help me in my understanding of juju scopes.
No I think this must generally be the direction I need to think towards. Any thought impulse in that direction can unlock the knot in my head. :) Thing is, my interface class is scope UNIT already. (GLOBAL and SERVICE definitely would be wrong I think) What hasn't really connected in my brain is how this relates to the scopes in metadata.yaml They have different values. I could only find documentation for global and container. Global apparently is the default. So that is what I set it to explicitly. I'm quite sure that I had tried it with 'container' too in one of the iterations of testing. I can't really see how the interface class scope could have changed. It was always scope.UNIT. So I'm going to dig through some code to understand the implications of scope in metadata.yaml... Thanks Ales Tilman -- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
