I'm not sure exactly what 'auto reap' means? Not being a Unix-ian, coming from DOSland, makes my life quite difficult when it comes to understanding Unix. Cheers again, TommyGun. www.y2kdiary.com -----Original Message----- >From : Pierre Smolarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : 19 July 2001 13:39:45 Subject : Re: Do I use fork() for this? :) > >the daemon is server side and runs in the background. So unless you have >shell, you can't start it off that easily. > >What you could use BUT IT IS EXPERIMENTAL is thread. > >check it out in perldoc. Its really the easy way to do what you do.. Threads >will handle all the forking and communication for your. But be warned.. its >very beta and can not be relied on! Threads I not standard and needs to be >compiled in with perl on install. Threads will be standard in perl 6 (long >live the dream) > >until then, I would fork away the way I told you in my earlier email > >> Is that is the only way to communicate with a $child? Without having >> to Kill() it! > >ideally you would keep a conversation.. but you don't always need to.... you >can let it die naturally with 'exit'. Remember to auto reap though. There is >nothing worse then coming back to your box a day later and you see 1000's of >children lost in your system.... :( trust me.. I know too well.. had many a >crash with lack of memory during debugging. I recommend you develop a fork >system off the live server! > >Pierre > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: ?pierre smolarek? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 1:30 PM >Subject: Re: Do I use fork() for this? > > >> Sounds a bit complicated, for the beta1 version, but I may move to >> something like this as my confidence grows. >> >> Is the 'deamon script' a purely server-side app? This is a bit of a prob >> at them moment as only have FTP for live server and my test box is >> in the early stages of dementure. >> Would this make it quite awkward to debug? As only have Bindows running >'perl -d ..' from the prompt at the mo. >> >> I think I'll just have the original search script check for files older >than >> a couple of hours. (I know this is a really crap way to do the job, but >> I don't care anymore!) >> >> Is that is the only way to communicate with a $child? Without having >> to Kill() it! >> >> Thanks for the ideas and they are most appreciated, >> they just make lazy people like me feel tired (oh crap!). >> >> Maybe another day I'll feel full of perl-beens. >> >> TommyGun. >> >> www.y2kdiary.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >From : Pierre Smolarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To : [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Date : 19 July 2001 13:01:58 >> Subject : Re: Do I use fork() for this? >> not really the best way in my opinion.... >> > >> >what you could do is use two scripts..... >> > >> >first script is the cgi, it does what needs to be done to get the data >and >> >then pipes it to a deamon script that forks off children for each >proccess. >> >The cgi then askes the deamon on the status of its child as the child and >> >parent has communication between each other. The child will die a natural >> >death and you could set the deamon to autoreap. >> > >> >All your cgi will then do is transilate the deamon to the user, basicly >> >saying. ?Sorry.. still busy...? and once the deamon tells you its ok.. >the >> >cgi will read the DBM or whatever you plan to do. >> > >> >If your a little nerves of all this conversation between deamon and >children >> >and cgi.. you could use temp files with the status.... and you just >delete >> >or change the contents of the tmp file... your cgi will just check whats >up >> >with the tmp. >> > >> >make sence? >> > >> >Pierre >> > >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 12:53 PM >> >Subject: Do I use fork() for this? >> > >> > >> >> Hello all, >> >> >> >> I'm currently trying to put a little ?search engine? together for >> >> a small web site, basically searching through a bunch of files for >> >> matching keywords. >> >> As I want a Progress Page while the script is doing its work, I show >> >> a page while the script is searching (had to use $| to achieve) and >> >> store the results in a DBM. >> >> So when the search/progress script is finished I activate a JavaScript >> >> doc.location command to call the script again with diff params, thus >> >> reading the results DBM and outputing page by page. >> >> >> >> What I want to do is... put a ?kill time? of say 20 mins on the DBM >file >> >> so that it gets tidied away. So... >> >> >> >> $child = Fork() { >> >> some code to Sleep(20 mins); >> >> then Unlink(results DBM); >> >> } >> >> >> >> What if the client is still accessing the search results at 20 mins? >> >> I read through PerlDoc perlfork and it recommends not Kill()ing >Children. >> >> >> >> Can my script, while requests for result pages rain down, communicate >> >> with the $child (richkid ;o), thus sustaining the $child's life? >> >> >> >> >> >> Probably not the most practical way to achieve my objective, >> >> but I'm not the best at this programming lark. :o) >> >> >> >> TommyGun. >> >> >> >> www.y2kdiary.com >> >> >> >> ----- >> >> >> >> 20 email addresses from 15,000 domain names - free at >> >http://www.another.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >- >> >---- >> > >> > >> >> -- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> >-- >> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> >> ----- >> >> 20 email addresses from 15,000 domain names - free at >http://www.another.com >> >> > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- Express yourself @ another.com http://another.com
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]