On 28 Dec 2000, at 11:29, Volker Stolz wrote:
> Am 28. Dec 2000 um 10:33 MET schrieb Dan Langille:
> > What about a daemon signalling a waiting perl script?
> > Is it an issue if the daemon signals the perl script when it's already
> > processing? Could a signal be missed?
>
> How about using a FIFO (maybe in /tmp) and let the daemon printf,echo,cat,...
> control-msgs into the FIFO and have a perl script sitting on the other end?
That sounds good to me. It meets the criteria.
> Signals suck. Another advantage would be that the perl script could choose
> it´s own pace and let things queue up in the FIFO. However, a FIFO only
> has limited capacity.
Given that we are processing incoming messages from cvs-all, I don't
think we'll meet that capacity (not that I know what the capacity is).
> If I´d be using Haskell (http://www.haskell.org), I´d
> throw in a forkIO() and would get a neatly multi-threaded solution where one
> thread reads the FIFO and queues up requests while the other thread queries
> him for more work -- I don´t know about threaded perl, though.
That sounds great. But without knowing more, I think it's too much for
the task at hand. I would like to keep things simple and free from
complicity. Writing a multi-threaded solution, unless someone else
wants to do it, may be too big of a task for me. Volunteeers? ;)
thank you.
--
Dan Langille
The FreeBSD Diary - http://freebsddiary.org/
FreshPorts - http://freshports.org/
NZ Broadband - http://unixathome.org/broadband/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
