Port ranges - restricting opening and closing ranges

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

I understand the difference between listing and removing vs. removing one.
I'll be extremelly surprised if you design a non-trivial solution for the
former. I know what you're capable of.

gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
On Aug 6, 2014 3:29 PM, "roger peppe" <roger.peppe at canonical.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20140806/2254989b/attachment.html>