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