cf-charmers team mailing list archive

[Benjamin Saller <benjamin.saller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I thought about making distinct class ( something like
> RelationUnitListContext ), but this idea didn't suits me because having
> list of units with their own properties is something that stands behind
> juju relations. In this case I would like to see this functionality inside
> RelationContext. What do you think?
> 

My agument is the same, that while the List subclass can share the implementation with the parent they present a suitably different interface to the consuming template. Templates written to this type of relation must use iteration over a list and these methods will always return a list of values even if there is only 1. To me this seems sufficently different to warrent some clear indication in the declartive part of template configuration. 

> 
> On 22 May 2014 04:06, Benjamin Saller <benjamin.saller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > The idea here is fine. I'd suggest that this is a different context type
> > as it implies a different relationship to the template is manages however.
> > Any consumer/template needs to be prepared to iterate a list.
> >
> > Maybe a subclass called RelationListContext which sets multiple units to
> > True and the base class doesn't expose a way to change this directly, set
> > to False in the class. That way we share the implmentation but it is
> > explicit to the template what they will be consuming.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > https://code.launchpad.net/~lomov-as/charm-helpers/cloud-foundry-multiple-
> units-in-relation-context/+merge/220508
> > You are the owner of
> > lp:~lomov-as/charm-helpers/cloud-foundry-multiple-units-in-relation-context.
> >
-- 
https://code.launchpad.net/~lomov-as/charm-helpers/cloud-foundry-multiple-units-in-relation-context/+merge/220508
Your team Cloud Foundry Charmers is requested to review the proposed merge of lp:~lomov-as/charm-helpers/cloud-foundry-multiple-units-in-relation-context into lp:~cf-charmers/charm-helpers/cloud-foundry.