+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
