Martin Kraemer wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 05:42:33PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > But the parent dying doesn't imply the child processes also kicking > > the bucket (as we've seen). > > And that's rather easy to do, and IMHO it should be added to the children. > (that was what I said about kill(getppid(),0) or getppid() being 1). >
I think that's the decision to be made. IIRC BillS is against this. I'm leaning towards having the kids self destruct. > > > It's "easier" (as far as having access to the > > information) if we have an in-process daemon with access to the child > > PIDs. > > No. The child processes do their request loop. Why shouldn't they > check for the existence of the parent once per loop? > I was refering to the situation where the kids don't auto-suicide upon being orphaned. If they don't, the picking them off is tough out-of-process. It's looking like we need a decision vote: If the parent process dies, should the remaining child processes "gracefully" self-terminate. Yes: Jim No: -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
