Port ranges - restricting opening and closing ranges

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20140806/b5525c23/attachment.html>