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" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6 August 2014 14:13, Gustavo Niemeyer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net > > > > > > On Aug 6, 2014 3:03 PM, "roger peppe" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On 6 August 2014 13:57, Gustavo Niemeyer <[email protected]> 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. >
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
