Matthew Johnson writes: > On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > Can you give us some idea of what kind of signals you want to handle? > > potentially? off the top of my head, INT, TERM, HUP, ABRT, USR1/2 definitely, > maybe things like WINCH and TSTP. Anything you would want to send > with a ctrl-something or kill -SOMETHING and aren't immediately fatal > like QUIT or KILL. > > > I'm not arguing against creating a signal library -- it might be a > > good idea. What I am saying is that you're going to be quite > > restricted as to what you can do legally. > > > > Because of the tight restrictions on what you can do in a signal > > handler, I can't immediately see anything better than creating a > > thread ahead of time and triggering that thread from the signal > > handler. The thread, in turn, creates handler threads as required. > > That way, it doesn't matter what thread receives the signal. > > This is a sensible way of doing it, but it would be nice to have some > way of doing with without needing to write any C yourself.
OK, IMO it looks as though the API described on the IBM developerworks page would be a good one to emulate. It looks pleasingly simple. The other approach of having a dedicated thread sitting in sigwait(), would have the same API. > Also, signals which mean something really bad has happened and you > can't continue are less important to catch. And pretty much impossible to handle in Java in most cases, I would imagine. Andrew. _______________________________________________ Classpathx-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpathx-discuss
