On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:11:58 -0400, Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> stop frobnozz >>> remove frobnozz >>> add frobnozz >> >> What does it mean to remove a process from the running config? I don't >> really see why you would need more than "update frobnozz" which would >> update that process or group to the state named in the config on disk? > > Removing a process from the running config would mean that it wont > show up in the process list anymore. Oki. > Adding a process would mean that it would read a config section from > disk, and add it to the process table. This is something that people > also want (adding a new process to a running supervisord). I suppose 'add' does not care about autostart? > "update frobnozz" would obviously also need to stop any existing > frobnozz before it could start another frobnozz. As such, it should > be implemented in terms of "stop", then "remove", then "add" IMO. Sounds reasonable. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for simple primitives. It's just that my view of supervisor is as a tool to ensure that your processes are according to plan (i.e. config), rather than a framework that lets you fiddle around with various variations of the plan. This is prolly because I see supervisor thru the large-scale sysadmin's view. From this perspective, any tool that allows non-permanent changes to the state is suspect, much like any config file not under version management is suspect. -- Anders Qvist, Open End AB Tel: +46 31 7490887 _______________________________________________ Supervisor-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.supervisord.org/mailman/listinfo/supervisor-users
