First customer pain point pull request - default-hook

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:08 AM, William Reade
<william.reade at canonical.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Matthew Williams
> <matthew.williams at 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