Quoth Nicolas Williams on Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 05:05:14PM -0600: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:01:54PM -0800, David Bustos wrote: > > But you still intend to control, just through the administrator's > > interfaces rather than the restarter interfaces, right? I'd rather > > augment the restarter interfaces than have your service use the > > administrator's interfaces programmatically. Do you see what I mean? > > I don't. We have Committed SMF admin interfaces. They aren't just > aren't APIs. But why shouldn't we have admin APIs?
We do. See smf_enable_instance(3SCF). > I think that torturing SMF event consumer/admin wannabes into having to > be restarters, even part-time restarters, complicates things a lot. Then please file an RFE for simple interfaces to observe and control services. > Besides, it's a serious and, to my eyes, unnecessary constraint: > > Q: How many services can be the restarter for any given service instance > at any given time? > A: Just one. Are you suggesting that it should be possible for services to be controlled by multiple services? That sounds complicated, but if you have a use case, please file an RFE. > I can see how a mechanism for excluding multiple copies of the same > event consumer could matter, but then again, we already have that > mechanism. What do you mean by "excluding multiple copies of the same event consumer"? > (BTW, a monitor sub-command for svcs(1), much like the monitor sub- > command of route(1M), strikes me as useful too.) Do you mean like svcprop -w? Anyway, please file an RFE. David
