supplement open--port/close-port with ensure-these-and-only-these-ports?

[John Meinel]

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 <aaron.bentley at canonical.com>
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
> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20141101/7278f0ae/attachment.html>