relation departure timing changes

[Matthew Wedgwood]

On 08/23/2013 04:30 AM, William Reade wrote:
> * it's *not* a problem for units that merely "provide" a
> service to units on the other side of a relation, because (while they
> may well want to reconfigure by revoking access for the dying unit)
> their operation should not be materially affected by the
> disappearance of a dying requirer unit

I've come across many cases while writing charms where it's hard to work out which end of a relation is the provider and which one is the requirer. That model doesn't always fit.

Consider a pub-sub service where the provider is the one that initiates connections. Reverse proxies are similar in nature. It think it's incorrect to assume that it's any less urgent for the provider to know about a departing unit.