Quoth Jordan Brown (Sun) on Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:41:30AM -0800: > David Bustos wrote: > >I was saying that if rpc/bind has the "on-demand" property set, then > >when the framework noticed that a service which depends on rpc/bind is > >enabled, it would automatically enable rpc/bind. > > Assuming that you mean "enable" in its SMF sense, I suggest that such an > "on-demand" service be enabled or disabled normally, by administrator > choice, but be *started* only if it had a consumer. > > Enable/disable should control whether or not the service is *allowed* to > run. Whether it actually *does* run is a somewhat different question. > For some services, if the service is enabled, it runs, but for others > (e.g. telnet), even if enabled the service runs only if there is demand > for it.
Yes, that seems desirable. It's the inetd-for-everything model that Apple uses. The problem, I suspect, is that unlike telnetd, rpcbind has a doors interface, and we don't have an inetd for doors. (I don't know whether one is currently possible.) > I would hope that if an administrator explicitly disabled rpc/bind, and > then tried to non-recursively enable a service that depended on it, an > error report would result. Yes, of course. David