1.0 should be relatively stable though. So if we're planning to replace the patch with another patch that works differently, is that a good idea. Or do you think both things could live side by side without any trouble?
On 25 Jun 2010, at 18:20, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Anyone used screen? >>> >>> When you do "screen -l" you get a list of running screens. >>> >>> "couchdb -s" could do something similar. >>> >>> You could then do "couchdb -s PID" to get the status of that instance, with >>> URL. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >> >> That can be done by parsing result of ps I think. Is there a way once >> we have the pid to get the localstatelibdir of this pid ? So we could >> read the uri or such ? >> >> There maybe a way to do it via erlang but I don't know one actually . >> >> if we could do a remote call on one sname we could get the port but we >> don't set the sname actually. >> >> - benoit >> >> - benoit >> > > Anyway couldn't it be done in a future version ? I don't want to > introduce some extra complexity for a 1.0. Really would like this > patch appear in 1.0 so it can help to port couchdbdesktop or any > alternative to others OS. > > - benoit
