If we do take this approach, we should be sure to name the relation on the content-cache side in such a way that we could later implement a similar approach for the nginx portion if appropriate, so rather than calling the relation "statistics" as the haproxy charm does, maybe "haproxy-statistics" would be better.
If we do take this approach, we should be sure to name the relation on the content-cache side in such a way that we could later implement a similar approach for the nginx portion if appropriate, so rather than calling the relation "statistics" as the haproxy charm does, maybe "haproxy- statistics" would be better.