Re: Feedback on POE::Wheel::Run changes
Rocco Caputo wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:00:26AM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand that there is a long-term goal to supercede POE::Wheel::Run with a component module with the tentative title of POE::Component::Process (http://poe.perl.org/?V1.0-TODOS) and there has been a discussion on the mailing list previously about how the POE::Wheel::Run module could be improved. In spite of this, or perhaps because of it, I have made some simple additions to the POE::Wheel::Run module which I have needed for some in-house projects which I would like to get some feedback on. The first of these changes is a simple addition to include a Directory parameter to specific the location from within which the program specified is executed. The diff for these changes against the CVS version of POE::Wheel::Run (version 1.44) is as follows: [patch] Note that this creates a locally scoped directory change for execution and should not affect execution of other components and wheels. I think it's an interesting feature, but I don't use Wheel::Run enough to know how generally useful it is. I'm looking for more discussion on it before making any decisions. I also have changes for username and group specification with name rather than UID/GID, bute these changes are very minor and depends upon the getpwnam and getgrnam functions which may affect portability of the change. Comments and feedback welcomed. I like the sounds of the proposed ideas and can certainly see instances where it would be desired, though unfortunately none of them pertain to my own app as we have a dedicated server with strict access rules really prevents us from needing a pseudo "chrooted" environment (as that is the best I can think to call it). Although it might make maintenance a nightmare, and lead to code duplication, etc. but what about implementing a POE::Wheel::RunSecure or SecureRun, etc. which works in essentially the same way but with the above specifications. Seems like backwards compatibility would be taken care of, and any future implementations of a completely different module could incorporate all of the functionality and merge the two modules back into a single all powerful RUN module (for lack of a true/better name) :-). Just some thoughts from a relative POE newbie. http://danconia.org
RE: Feedback on POE::Wheel::Run changes
> I think it's an interesting feature, but I don't use Wheel::Run enough > to know how generally useful it is. I'm looking for more discussion > on it before making any decisions. I think it's fairly useful. I've implemented it in PoCo::Child but was hoping to hear the other ideas Robert mentioned before releasing. -Original Message- From: Rocco Caputo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 8:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Feedback on POE::Wheel::Run changes On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:00:26AM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I understand that there is a long-term goal to supercede POE::Wheel::Run > with a component module with the tentative title of POE::Component::Process > (http://poe.perl.org/?V1.0-TODOS) and there has been a discussion on the > mailing list previously about how the POE::Wheel::Run module could be > improved. In spite of this, or perhaps because of it, I have made some > simple additions to the POE::Wheel::Run module which I have needed for some > in-house projects which I would like to get some feedback on. > > The first of these changes is a simple addition to include a Directory > parameter to specific the location from within which the program specified > is executed. The diff for these changes against the CVS version of > POE::Wheel::Run (version 1.44) is as follows: [patch] > Note that this creates a locally scoped directory change for execution and > should not affect execution of other components and wheels. I think it's an interesting feature, but I don't use Wheel::Run enough to know how generally useful it is. I'm looking for more discussion on it before making any decisions. > I also have changes for username and group specification with name rather > than UID/GID, bute these changes are very minor and depends upon the > getpwnam and getgrnam functions which may affect portability of the change. > > Comments and feedback welcomed. POE::Wheel::Run is already very UNportable. We can probably work around missing get(gr|pw)nam functions, or at least throw "unsupported" errors wherever they fail. -- Rocco Caputo - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://poe.perl.org/
Limit for # of POE::Session's?
Didn't see it in the docs, if it is please point me to it and I will look harder next time :-)... Is there a known and predictable limit to the number of sessions that can be created/run? Obviously there is the physical memory boundaries for the hardware, and there are limits on Perl's scalar size, etc. depending on architecture, but other than similar such reasons, is there anything specific in the POE kernel/session preventing it from having an arbitrary number of sessions? I am not terribly concerned, but am just curious about the system in general as I think it rocks and I am enjoying developing a new app in it. The app watches directories and queues files to be processed in multiple stages (each a queue), etc. As our app scales the number of directories being watched (each as a session) and the threshold of the process queues (number of simultaneous processes allowed for each queue, each a session) can be set by the app admin, so I need to know if I am going to hit a spill over point and would need to restrict the threshold on the queues, etc. Thanks for any insight, http://danconia.org
