Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:54:06 -0800 From: Jos Backus <jos@catnook.com> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag=2DErling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Importing djb's public domain daemontools? Message-ID: <CAETOPp06zHp7kFfgH26Y6fZOsHsns_%2B9Y05XWb-5fCWc1Fm47A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <86boq2smsv.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <CAETOPp2Wcww1_fPonru0c6XoX%2BAV_HWoGZKiEMvmY50a5%2ByxRQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F14E291.5090803@FreeBSD.org> <CAETOPp1z0TJecz8kjDvf7trEOS5eogrcqEtDveUYzN=J-SvDNQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F1502CD.90409@FreeBSD.org> <CAETOPp1OYqu2UuaqXdrnCGXYKq%2B=cz_DP3K%2BmHo0zprYo=kpdQ@mail.gmail.com> <86boq2smsv.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2012/1/17 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> > Jos Backus <jos@catnook.com> writes: > > I want/need a solution that works in (nearly) all cases and is devoid o= f > > complex code trying to track state that is already represented elsewher= e > in > > the system (the process table and the parent/child process > > relationship). > > Please show me the complex code required to handle pidfiles. > In my solution, no such code exists, so whatever code is there now (the pidfile library/API) is more complex by definition :) > > > I want a solution that can reliably handle a crashing server that > > doesn't clean up its pidfile > > That's a strawman. Whatever tool you use needs to be able to handle > stale pidfiles anyway. > Um, why? The solution I propose doesn't use pidfiles at all. > > > I want a unified control interface for the services running on a box, > > a la launchd or what have you. > > So extend service(8) to support enabling / disabling services through > /etc/rc.conf.d/<servicename>. Probably no more than an afternoon's > work. > > > This isn't about religion but about missing base system functionality > > - the ability to reliably control services running on a box. > > The onus is on you to show that we don't already have that. > As I said before, the only thing we have today that will automatically restart services is init, and it is not flexible enough. That's where launchd would come in, but that would be a much more invasive change than just adding the daemontools bits, which would be optional and could be integrated gradually. Jos > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no > --=20 Jos Backus jos at catnook.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAETOPp06zHp7kFfgH26Y6fZOsHsns_%2B9Y05XWb-5fCWc1Fm47A>