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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > >
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
