Port ranges - restricting opening and closing ranges

[roger peppe]

On 6 August 2014 14:13, Gustavo Niemeyer <gustavo.niemeyer at canonical.com> wrote:
> gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2014 3:03 PM, "roger peppe" <roger.peppe at canonical.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6 August 2014 13:57, Gustavo Niemeyer <gustavo at 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.
>
> Ok. So let's please move on. I don't see the complexity of listing a few
> things (even if it is a thousand) and removing them. It's certainly much
> better than removing a thousand ports individually.
>
>> > 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 presents undefined behavior.
>>
>> The result is undefined for a unit (a port open can fail if another
>> one already has
>> the port open)
>
> Again, let's not argue anymore then. There's no real problem being created
> or solved either way.

So if the implementation is made significantly simpler by imposing
the "you must only close exactly what you've opened" rule, you'd be
OK with it? That's the problem I'm interested in here.