I guess os:: is fine, but in a separate file? -- Jiang Yan Xu <[email protected]> @xujyan <http://twitter.com/xujyan>
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Vinod Kone <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't like process:: because it conflicts with the libprocess namespace > as you mentioned. > > I still like proc:: but clearly BenH doesn't like it. I'm ok with os:: > namespace. > > > @vinodkone > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Benjamin Mahler < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Is there any consensus on how to place process utilities in stout? I >> would expect this to be in a process:: namespace but of course that is >> confusing because we use libprocess, which should perhaps have a >> libprocess:: namespace instead.. >> >> I'll be moving process utilities etc into stout, hopefully with the same >> calls for linux and OSX but I'm not yet certain if that is possible. I >> would like to place these in a process.hpp file inside a process:: >> namespace. >> >> I think these read very nicely: >> process::alive(pid_t) >> process::children(pid_t) >> process::stat(pid_t) >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Yan Xu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> This batch of commits changed the reaper to use "Future" as the >>> notification mechanism. >>> >>> Sequence: >>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/ >>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/10745/ >>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/10746/ >>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/10747/ >>> >>> Best, >>> Yan >>> -- >>> Jiang Yan Xu <[email protected]> @xujyan <http://twitter.com/xujyan> >>> >> >> >
