> > try this again after commenting out the call to the method that performs > the unlink(). > If I comment out the call to checkServiceName, the bind fails (and with it rxapi) even the "first" time, unless I manually remove the $XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/.ooRexx-5.0.0-64.service special file
kill the first instance and try launching rxapi again to see if > successfully binds. > If rxapi is started successfully, and I kill it, the special file still exists, and as such starting any further instances of rxapi fail, until I manually remove the special file again. We probably need rxapi to open a second, standard file (in the same XDG_RUNTIME_DIR location) that it opens, and any further rxapi instances would only proceed if they could successfully unlink this file, which would be the case if the initial rxapi instance has ended or was killed. (Well, yes, that's probably exactly what you describe as "still a need for a .pid file") On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 3:21 PM Rick McGuire <object.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > Erich, > > One more experiment. Since there is some automatic cleanup involved with > that file because of its location, could you try this again after > commenting out the call to the method that performs the unlink(). From what > I've read, the second bind should fail, which will cause the second > instance to close. > > However, there's another scenario I'm worried about. If the first > experiment works, kill the first instance and try launching rxapi again to > see if successfully binds. > > Rick > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 8:54 AM Erich Steinböck <erich.steinbo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> One thing that needs to be checked out is what happens if a second >>> version of rxapi gets launched. >>> .. there's also some code to unlink() the file before the bind operation >>> that I'm hoping will fail if the socket is still in use. >> >> >> On Linux, rxapi can be started a second time, with both of them >> continuing to listenForConnections() >> The reason is, as you suspected, with unlink, which returns 0 although >> the first rxapi still has this socket open. The docs seem to confirm >> this. https://linux.die.net/man/2/unlink "If the name referred to a >> socket, fifo or device the name for it is removed but processes which have >> the object open may continue to use it." >> >
_______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
