Submitting a new module? (Linux::ForkControl)

2003-11-13 Thread Brad Lhotsky
I submitted my request to register the namespace to [EMAIL PROTECTED] through the pause.perl.org interface. Before I upload the module, I figured I'd send a email here, to double check my logic. Basically, here's my rationale from the namespace registration request: I plan on utilizing

Re: Submitting a new module? (Linux::ForkControl)

2003-11-13 Thread Arthur Corliss
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Brad Lhotsky wrote: snip So I guess, two questions: 1) Anyone see this as useful? 2) Is 'Linux::ForkControl' a decent name for this module? 1) Yes. 2) I almost thing that a reverse would be better (i.e., ForkControl::Linux, or similar). Your module could provide a

Re: Submitting a new module? (Linux::ForkControl)

2003-11-13 Thread Tim Bunce
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:56:02AM -0500, Brad Lhotsky wrote: but the idea is to extend the module using the /proc filesystem (hence the name space) 2) Is 'Linux::ForkControl' a decent name for this module? Other operating systems have /proc interfaces. (Perhaps not identical to Linux but

Re: Submitting a new module? (Linux::ForkControl)

2003-11-13 Thread A. Pagaltzis
* Brad Lhotsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-11-13 17:58]: Anyone see this as useful? Sure is. Is 'Linux::ForkControl' a decent name for this module? I don't think so. We already have a TLNS for process related stuff - Proc::. Okay, so this is Linux specific. That belongs in the name too. And

Re: Submitting a new module? (Linux::ForkControl)

2003-11-13 Thread Simon Cozens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arthur Corliss) writes: 2) I almost thing that a reverse would be better (i.e., ForkControl::Linux, Alternatively, there are Unix and Proc top level namespaces already. -- The trouble with computers is that they do what you tell them, not what you want. -- D.

Re: Submitting a new module? (Linux::ForkControl)

2003-11-13 Thread Brad Lhotsky
There are similar modules, but their interface is different. I've only found Parallel::ForkManager to be close, implementation wise, to do what my module does. I aimed to remove all the fork controlling code/logic away from the main program. The way I've implemented the module, the code in your

Re: Submitting a new module? (Linux::ForkControl)

2003-11-13 Thread A. Pagaltzis
* Brad Lhotsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-11-13 20:35]: There are similar modules, but their interface is different. I've only found Parallel::ForkManager to be close, implementation wise, to do what my module does. Either your description was unclear, or I misread it. Also, I didn't feel like

RE: Submitting a new module? (Linux::ForkControl)

2003-11-13 Thread Sherzod Ruzmetov
: I would strongly favour the latter, so we can also have : Proc::ForkControl::Solaris and Proc::ForkControl::BSD etc etc. s/Control/Cntl/ -- Sherzod