Raphael Geissert <[email protected]> writes: > Heh, yeah. Those were terribly-chosen names but I lacked imagination > that day :) What do you suggest to use as names instead of fork() and > exec()?
background() and run() maybe? > what about the interface to reap jobs? wait() seems fine there. It's doing basically the same thing as CORE::wait(). > Maybe wait(), when passed a hash ref, should return the value of the > hash member that was reaped, when called in scalar context. In array > context it should probably return the key, value pair. Seems reasonable to me. > It seems that the only way to achieve what I want requires wait() to: > a) call CORE::wait() to get the pid and $? of the reaped process. > b) call $cmd->pid() for every member of the hash it was passed to see which > of the processes was the one that finished. Needs to be done this way > because we could otherwise end up reaping more jobs, if waitpid($pid, > WNOHANG) was used. > c) tell the $cmd object what the return status was. This requires a getter > and a setter to be added to the OO interface. The former should probably > refuse to set the return status if $self->wait() doesn't return -1. Yup, that sounds right. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
