Yes, I can find myself in your proposed sollution. If I get bit in the butt, I'll be happy to report it here.
Furthermore, Paul and Aaron, many thanks for this great piece of software! I'm a very happy user! /Marc On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:08:32AM -0000, Aaron Stone wrote: > Ohhhhhhhhhhhkkkkkkkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy > > Geo's approach is really cool. Marc's approach is more typical. > > You guys are free to choose either one. I'm sure that Geo thinks that Marc > will get bit in the butt by his choice at some point, and Marc thinks that > Geo is being weird. For sure you're both right. > > Paul and I have both posted about how we're planning on supporting both > modes of operation; it's just a matter of getting the code right. > > Aaron > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2006, Geo Carncross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > > > On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 21:56 +0100, Marc Dirix wrote: > >> Using the &> and the sorts is just plain wrong. > > > > Why? > > > >> You want a daemon if it daemonizes itself to daemonize by itself without > >> needing any shell implementation. > > > > No I don't. > > > > Daemons get started by the shell anyway. The shell is in a perfect > > position to do this. > > > > My question is why do _you_ want a daemon that daemonizes itself? > > > >> In that way the daemon runs on any number off platforms, like w32 (if > >> necessary). > > > > Win32 doesn't support the unix concept of daemons anyway, and the > > "daemonizing" process used in unix doesn't work on Windows. > > > > -- > > Internet Connection High Quality Web Hosting > > http://www.internetconnection.net/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dbmail-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev > > > > -- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dbmail-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
