Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: > On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 03:20, Paul J Stevens wrote: >> I for one would vote against having those patches be accepted into >> CVS, and I imagine Ilja wont commit them as they are. >> >> Don't get me wrong though; inetd functionality is a valuable >> attribute, but I don't think they should be acquired by forking >> existing files. >> >> Personally, since I'm working on pre-forking functionality ala >> apache, I'm pretty certain server.c is where such changes should >> occur. >> >> And we should definitely allow admins to select such settings >> runtime: SERVERTYPE=<inetd|standalone> > > All I was saying is that I think some type of xinetd functionality > should be added to the 2.0 branch. If this implmentation (patch) > doesn't cut the mustard, then fine we need to rework it, but I would > like to see (x)inetd supported, somehow. >
I agree with both of you.. I never intended the things I wrote to be more than a proof of concept, and I didn't implement into the existing structure in order that I minimised stuff that I might have broken. Since there is a demand (other than just me) for (x)inetd support, I'll have a look at the 2.0 tree and see where I can make a start at a sensible patch for that, and hopefully get it incorporated into the tree. Matt PS: sorry Moderator, I seem to send stuff from the wrong account all too frequently :-(
