The first part next to checkRunningPid makes sense. But the second part crashes "squid -k check", by always returning true if the pid file doesn't exists..
On tis, 2008-10-28 at 20:16 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: > I realised I never sent the patch without the option; > > > > > On 12/08/2008, at 4:14 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > > >> So, effectively just change to exit(0) in those two places? > >> > > > > For the HEAD commit(s) yes. If you need it ported the option may be > > needed > > to keep other users going. > > > > Amos > > > >> > >> On 12/08/2008, at 4:02 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > >> > >>>> Our management tools like processes to be idempotent; i.e., you > >>>> should > >>>> be able to start or stop a process any number of times without it > >>>> throwing an error. > >>>> > >>>> Currently, Squid will return 1 if a squid process is already > >>>> running > >>>> (upon start) and when there isn't one (upon -k shutdown). > >>>> > >>>> I'm writing a patch to change this behaviour, and the most > >>>> reasonable > >>>> way to do it seems to be with a command-line option; I've somewhat > >>>> arbitrarily chosen -p. > >>>> > >>>> Does this seem reasonable? If so, I'll submit a patch shortly. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I agree with Robert. The behavior change is nice. Requiring another > >>> option > >>> to enable/disable it is not. > >>> > >>> I'd personally go with just the behavior change to the HEAD trees. > >>> Only disabling and adding the option to enable if its ported to > >>> currently > >>> stable releases (2.7, 3.0). > >>> > >>> Amos > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
