>I don't know that I'd call it broken, it does make what it needs >to do very easy elsewhere, but I will grant you that it doesn't >extend very well with changes such as contracts.
It meant that it's poorly architectured. Not that it does not work. > >If that were to happen, which way should the compatibility >interface fall here? My guess would be to have it cause a >new contract for each successive fork, as does sshd. I think it very much depends on the service; and since daemon can't really control successive forks, it would not seem like a function for fork. Casper
