I believe there is already "opened-ports" to tell you what ports Juju is currently tracking.
As for the rest, "open-port" only takes a single port (or range), which means that if you wanted only 80 and 8080 open, you would need a different syntax. (something that lets you specify multiple ports/ranges to be opened). I can see a point to it, but we do already have "opened-ports" if you're looking for the behavior you want. John =:-> On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Aaron Bentley <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi all, > > I take a stateful approach to writing charms. That is, my charms > determine what the target state is, then take whatever actions are > needed to get the unit into that state, paying as little attention to > the current state as is possible. > > open-port / close-port require knowledge of the current state; if I > know that I want only port 314 open, then I need to know whether any > other ports are open and close them. In most cases, a charm only > opens specific ports, so I know which ports to close. > > Right now, I'm writing an update to the Apache2 charm that would allow > the user to specify which ports to serve http on, which means that > when a user changes the port, I may need to close the old port and > open the new one. If I want to use close-port / open-port, I need to > track what ports are open. But juju already knows this, so I > shouldn't have to track it separately-- that violates DRY. > > The smallest change would be to provide a way to list the open ports, > so that charms can close any open ports they no longer want open. But > that leaves a bunch of work for a stateful charm author. What they > actually want is a command that ensures specific ports are open and > closes all others. > > ensure-these-and-only-these-ports was the first thing I thought of, > but we could extend open-port instead. open-port would need to accept > multiple ports, not just ranges, and it would need to accept a > - --close-all-others flag, that would close all open ports not listed. > > Does that seem like a sensible change? > > Aaron > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1 > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUVOo3AAoJEK84cMOcf+9h2acIAL5ogJIy4O23TKa/RiWUcv0E > wX9NHpNj9r7P8LoEHwUN/0nIeLi0UPQtDMN/w2orKGK01oXsPvvoVy/SPmMH+8G+ > yjOWQY1ppjB42vFsdLlP1d6VFutI94hiLEFgfT1ss9JSbPZXteakoKmhG3Og+W4e > pZSrvVjccZPp3IhSsGclfVxVJLD+lMYxXL7NA/x4ji74YMiUE8pH3OCbCeOjderw > oHlDMPClItugqvgAtCiHpr/n79yB75y1FARalsbXelXullgBLpiRxTQHgBq/yfn+ > o22d1uCmp+xqIveyUS433RffEzMDDt61UaZTuyui8ZG9n4/Jy9xOpKN9wGDhhvE= > =gzrL > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > 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
