Mike Gerdts wrote: > I think the hard part of this is (as of last I heard) Linux had no > implementation of doors or contracts.
Yeah, I know. I'm not familiar enough with the guts of SMF to know how critical that would be. Perhaps, for instance, process groups could supply some of the functionality, or perhaps only service monitoring (not start/stop per se) would be impacted. > After that, trying to convince Linux admins to > learn SMF to only manage your application is also a losing battle, > IMHO. Yes. Because our application is composed of several SMF services, we already hide SMF behind our own start/stop requests, so the admin wouldn't need to learn SMF. > The strength of SMF is being able to manage the dependencies all of > the services on a box. Having it manage a small number with no > integration from the OS provider would likely gain less than a > traditional SysV style start/stop scripts with a mildly intelligent > monitoring routine. That's one of our possible alternatives. In some ways, though, it would be simpler for us to have an SMF implementation (even if it's a subset) so that our various components would all plug into the same infrastructure on all platforms, rather than having each component have to have support for _both_ SMF _and_ some more traditional scheme.
