* Brad Lhotsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-13 20:35]: > There are similar modules, but their interface is different. > I've only found Parallel::ForkManager to be close, > implementation wise, to do what my module does.
Either your description was unclear, or I misread it. > Also, I didn't feel like Proc::* was a good namespace, as right now, > there's no reliance on /proc. You made it sound so, though. Anyways.. > I like the idea of a a ForkControl::* name space and separate > implementations based on what's available. I don't. Something as specific as "fork control" does not warrant its own TLNS. > Perhaps a ForkControl::Unix which implements controls on a > very generic basis, utilizing command output to judge system > health (things like uptime, vmstat, etc, etc) a > ForkControl::Proc which can use information out of the /proc > filesystem, and so on and so forth? For the 2nd and 3rd level namespaces, this makes a lot of sense. > I could even abstract out the Implementation and make a > ForkControl that detects the environments and uses the > ForkControl::* of best fit. Yes, as I proposed in my other mail, though it didn't quite fit the same circumstances. :) But the principle remains the same. > Maybe is should live under Parallel::Fork::Control::* ? or > Fork::Control::* ? Parallel::ForkControl as a single distribution with internal ::Generic, ::Linux, etc backends sounds like the best bet here to me. Alternatively, a bunch of independent Parallel::ForkControl::Generic etc distributions, which is less elegant. -- Regards, Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
