Request For Comment on ports change to package.yaml

[Loïc Minier]

Sorry for coming a bit late to the party; I think the proposed format is
nice for the current implementation plans where apps directly bind to a
port in the main system.

[ I keep thinking this could be made less painful from an app
implementation point of view: at the moment apps need to either develop
specific code to negotiate a port, or find a way to inject the port in the
config at startup time, restart the app if the port needs changing etc. etc.

There must be a way – perhaps with network namespaces? – to allow all
bind() calls to succeed for an app, then handle the routing from real ports
to app namespaces at the toplevel. First apps which needs port 80 in its
config gets the routing. The other ones get a random other port or no port,
but can still startup and bind, but nobody talks to them. ]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Sergio Schvezov <
sergio.schvezov at canonical.com> wrote:

> I wrote this proposal: https://gist.github.com/sergiusens/
> 97e9ea2e31d5f0fcc09a for dealing with ports.
>
> Already discussed with a few folk before shooting it into the wild, and
> now here it is. I'd appreciate some yea (+1) or nay's (-1).
>
> Feel free to comment against the gist, create PRs or just reply to this
> email.
>
> Cheers
> Sergio
>
> --
> snappy-devel mailing list
> snappy-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/
> mailman/listinfo/snappy-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/snappy-devel/attachments/20150205/cc4949b1/attachment.html>