agreed. to be clear .. imo, close-port shouldn't error unless there's a
type mismatch on inputs. ie none of the posited scenarios in this thread
should result in an error.
-k
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer gust...@niemeyer.net
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 4:18 PM, roger
Agreed, but I also agree that the error on split ranges is a good
simplification to get an implementation in place, and it also doesn't
sound super useful, so it sounds okay to fail to begin with. The other
cases are easy to handle, though.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Kapil Thangavelu
On 5 August 2014 19:34, Gustavo Niemeyer gust...@niemeyer.net wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 4:18 PM, roger peppe rogpe...@gmail.com wrote:
close ports 80-110 - error (mismatched port range?)
I'd expect ports to be closed here, and also on 0-65536.
I'm not sure. An advantage of requiring that
How many port ranges are typically made available? One.. Two? Sounds like a
trivial problem.
In terms of concurrency, there are issues either way. Someone can open a
port while it is being closed, and whether that works or not depends purely
on timing.
gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
On Aug 6,
Why would any application well designed open thousands of ports
individually rather than a range? Sounds like an unreasonable use case.
I also don't get your point about concurrency. You don't seem to have
addressed the point I brought up that opening or closing ports concurrently
today already
On 6 August 2014 13:57, Gustavo Niemeyer gust...@niemeyer.net wrote:
Why would any application well designed open thousands of ports individually
rather than a range? Sounds like an unreasonable use case.
I don't know. But if it's easy to make it work well in this case too
(and I believe
it
gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
On Aug 6, 2014 3:03 PM, roger peppe roger.pe...@canonical.com wrote:
On 6 August 2014 13:57, Gustavo Niemeyer gust...@niemeyer.net wrote:
Why would any application well designed open thousands of ports
individually
rather than a range? Sounds like an
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
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
imo, no, its a no-op. the end state is still the same. if its an error, and
now we have partial failure modes to consider against ranges.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:25 PM, David Cheney david.che...@canonical.com
wrote:
Yes, absolutely.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Domas Monkus
Ok, so the behavior would have to be:
opened ports : 80-100
close ports 60-70 - no error (noop)
close ports 60-90 - error (cannot close part of a port range)
close ports 80-100 - no error
I'm starting to think this scenario is preferrable, especially with respect
to the idempotency of charm
+1
also:
close ports 90-110 - error (cannot close part of a port range)
close ports 80-110 - error (mismatched port range?)
On 5 August 2014 13:51, Domas Monkus domas.mon...@canonical.com wrote:
Ok, so the behavior would have to be:
opened ports : 80-100
close ports 60-70 - no error
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 4:18 PM, roger peppe rogpe...@gmail.com wrote:
close ports 80-110 - error (mismatched port range?)
I'd expect ports to be closed here, and also on 0-65536.
gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
--
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe
+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
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
+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
16 matches
Mail list logo
