On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:25:09 -0600 David Ashley <w.david.ash...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem with turning processing over to the user script when a > SIGHUP is received is that the script can not determine if there is a > controlling terminal or not. If the terminal is gone and the user > attempts any kind of terminal I/O then the script will hang forever > for all practical purposes. > If the terminal is gone this should produce a SIGHUP, or am I wrong. > Also, by letting the user script process the SIGHUP you are really not > using the signal system the way it is intended to operate on *nix. > Hm, I'm not quite sure about this. I have to investigate this. At least SIGHUP has the following uses: a. SIGHUP has an 'artificial use' to notify daemons to reread their configuration. b. It happens when the terminal dies. > Oh, and there is one REALLY BIG POINT. The SIGHUP signal is NOT > platform independent. It is NOT supported on Windows and therefore > the behavior of the script would be different than on a *nix > platform. This is an absolute reason not to support SIGHUP processing. > Here I do not agree. In ooRexx there is other stuff which has a label 'Windows only'. So why not say in the documentation that SIGHUP will be intercepted on *nix only. From a programming point of view it isn't a problem either. -- Manfred ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_nov _______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
