Hmmm...the more I think about it., socket_owner and socket_mode are indeed better names. Chris/Mike, do you want to weigh in on consistency vs. clarity?
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Roger Hoover <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Grzegorz Nosek <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 08:33:28AM -0700, Roger Hoover wrote: >> > I'm most of the way there on #2. The issue is that as far as I can tell >> > there's no way to find out the umask for a user so I don't automatically >> > know what permissions to chmod the FCGI socket with. Now, the choices >> are >> > >> > a) Don't chmod the FCGI socket, just chown it to the uid/gid of the user >> the >> > process will run as >> > >> > b) Add socket_chown, socket_chmod args that only apply to unix domain >> > sockets. This allows the most control for the user but the fact that >> the >> > params don't always make sense is a bit awkward. >> > >> > [fcgi-program:test] >> > command=/foo/bar.fcgi >> > socket=unix:///tmp/test.socket >> > socket_chown=rhoover:wheel ; this option would only apply to unix domain >> > sockets >> > socket_chmod=0777 ; this option would only apply to unix domain sockets >> > user=nobody >> > process_name=foo_%(process_num)s >> > numprocs=2 >> > >> > Anyone have an opinion here? >> >> I'm for explicit owner and mode options. Apache-style FastCGI wrappers >> are a pain. >> > > Thanks. I was leaning this direction. > > >> >> Also, my vote would go to naming these options "socket_owner" and >> "socket_mode" (or "socket_perm(s)"?) as I've heard enough of "setting >> chmods" in my day ;) >> > > That makes sense but I'm going for consistency with the existing > unix_http_server section of the config. > http://supervisord.org/manual/current/configuration.html#unix_http_server > > >> >> Best regards, >> Grzegorz Nosek >> > >
_______________________________________________ Supervisor-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.supervisord.org/mailman/listinfo/supervisor-users
