Yes, absolutely.

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Domas Monkus <domas.mon...@canonical.com> wrote:
> A follow-up question: should closing a port that was not opened previous to
> that result in an error?
>
> Domas
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Matthew Williams
> <matthew.willi...@canonical.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1 on an opened-ports hook tool, I've added it to the task list
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:41 AM, William Reade
>> <william.re...@canonical.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agreed. Note, though, that we'll want to give charms a way to know what
>>> ports they have already opened: I think this is a case where
>>> look-before-you-leap maybe beats easier-ask-forgiveness-than-permission (and
>>> the consequent requirement that error messages be parsed...). An
>>> opened-ports hook tool should do the trick.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer <gust...@niemeyer.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 to Mark's point. Handling exact matches is much easier, and does
>>>> not prevent a fancier feature later, if there's ever the need.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Mark Ramm-Christensen (Canonical.com)
>>>> <mark.ramm-christen...@canonical.com> wrote:
>>>> > My belief is that as long as the error messages are clear, and it is
>>>> > easy to
>>>> > close 8000-9000 and then open 8000-8499 and 8600-9000, we are fine.
>>>> > Of
>>>> > course it is "nicer" if we can do that automatically for you, but I
>>>> > don't
>>>> > see why we can't add that later, and I think there is a value in
>>>> > keeping a
>>>> > port-range as an atomic data-object either way.
>>>> >
>>>> > --Mark Ramm
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Domas Monkus
>>>> > <domas.mon...@canonical.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Hi,
>>>> >> me and Matthew Williams are working on support for port ranges in
>>>> >> juju.
>>>> >> There is one question that the networking model document does not
>>>> >> answer
>>>> >> explicitly and the simplicity (or complexity) of the implementation
>>>> >> depends
>>>> >> greatly on that.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Should we only allow units to close exactly the same port ranges that
>>>> >> they
>>>> >> have opened? That is, if a unit opens the port range [8000-9000], can
>>>> >> it
>>>> >> later close ports [8500-8600], effectively splitting the previously
>>>> >> opened
>>>> >> port range in half?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Domas
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> Juju-dev mailing list
>>>> >> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
>>>> >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>>>> >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Juju-dev mailing list
>>>> > Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
>>>> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>>>> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Juju-dev mailing list
>>>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
>>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Juju-dev mailing list
>>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Juju-dev mailing list
>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>
>
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>

-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Reply via email to