Comment 1 for bug 1009687

<imbrandon> would be really cool to have a hooks/missing hook
<imbrandon> that could get called if there was no other named hook
<hazmat> imbrandon, a whole charm with a single missing hook ... ick ;-)
<imbrandon> hahahah i was waiting for that :) it sounded good in my head and for like 5 miuntes, but the more i thought about it I tend to agree :) heh
<SpamapS> hazmat: so you'd rather have a whole charm with a single hook, and 20 symlinks?
<SpamapS> hazmat: because, thats whats there now, and its kind of ridiculous ;)
<hazmat> SpamapS, yeah.. because that's also discoverable what hooks its using
<hazmat> a single missing hook.. no idea
<SpamapS> at what point do you care?
<hazmat> the point where your debugging it
<hazmat> or modifying it
<SpamapS> If you're already debugging or modifying it
<SpamapS> you're editting the missing hook
<SpamapS> which isn't a useful hook without a clear routing switch/case of some kind
<SpamapS> Unless it calls a declarative charm helper thing.. which is what I think would be cool
<SpamapS> I mean, its already happening. Its just happening in a clunky way with symlinks
<SpamapS> because now you have to have the routing switch/case *AND* the symlinks
<imbrandon> hrm , declarative charm helpers and one hook .... hrm
<hazmat> SpamapS, as a charm author i can see that being nice.. as a farmer.. its nice to know what hooks are being used without having to dig through arbitrary src
<SpamapS> hazmat: As a one time chief farmer, and now occasional farmer.. I respectfully disagree. I still have to read the symlinked-to thing before I understand the charm... and often its not clear what is symlinked to.