Thanks for following up with an issue Mike! On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 1:45 PM Mike DePaulo <mikedep...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 4:36 PM Mike DePaulo <mdepa...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:46 PM Eric Helms <ehe...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > I'm fine if someone wants to take up the effort to find and suggest > two ports that match all of those as the defaults. > > > > I suggest: > > 24816 (powers of 2: 2, 4, 8, 16) > > 24817 > > > > They're not officially reserved, and only used by Apple "med-ltp" as > > part of a block of 1000 ports. [1] [2] > > > > I am new to Pulp, but I think other devs indicated that users may > > browse available content. If so, I suggest we use 24816 for content, > > and 24817 for API. > > > > > I've already opened a PR to make port customization a reality. In most > environments, these ports won't see the light of day as they will be > running services on localhost with a webserver proxying to them. I was > aiming for sane defaults, that users and developers could easily rely on > and expect across basic environments. And allow customization in > environments that need it. > > > > Understood, I was not aware of this. But we need to prevent any > > conflicts by default. Even if we only listen on localhost, we can > > conflict with services listening on all interfaces. Users are likely > > to give up on Pulp if they run into a port conflict; either because > > they cannot figure it out ("why isn't this service starting?") or > > because they spend too much time trying to set it up and other > > priorities come up. > > Since users can interact with the API via web browser, I submitted a > task for 24816 (API) & 24817 (content): > https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4556 > > -Mike >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev