We also have a src/common/process_utils.hpp which contains only mesos::internal::utils::process::killtree() at the moment.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Yan Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
