Daemon monitoring has some really nice benefits. But it really is swimming upstream against the flow of sysvinit. :-) Many daemons just aren't designed to allow it, especially for some advanced features (sending signals, logging). This means Tasks are required. Having two solutions (Tasks and Daemons) leads to confusion. Since Tasks are conceptually simpiler they seem to be winning.
Right now our bootscripts are very 80s BSD. I'd love to see it modernized. Moving to the common init.d/rc#.d isn't a real improvement. Upstart is very interesting. The "need" based dependency inits seem to be an improvement but really aren't (see my aBootScripts from years past). I'm also concerned about distracting from the 013 release. WRT Daemon monitor daemon. I believe, the Daemon shell function implements a simple one in sh for each daemon being monitored. On 9/28/06, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm updating the recipe for Bind and I thinking on how to start named. > Should it be a task or a daemon. Do we still use daemons? > And while on the subject, shouldn't we have a simple way to start > Tasks/Daemons at bootup, such as a list in BootOptions or a rc-dir with > symlinks? > Another note is that shouldn't it read "StartTask Udev" etc in the > bootscripts instead of "Udev Start" as it says now? > > A third note on start up. The discussion has been up before, but nothing > was decided (afaik), shouldn't we have a monitoring daemon for managing > daemons/tasks? > > -- > /Jonas > > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > _______________________________________________ > gobolinux-devel mailing list > gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org > http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel > -- Carlo J. Calica _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
