Hi Roger, On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Roger Hoover <roger.hoo...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Got it. Thanks for explaining. I think this is the way that inetd/xinetd > work. > Yeah, I'm not sure of how inetd/xinetd pass the new connection to the child. Sounds like the child gets 3 copies of the connection as stdin/stdout/stderr? This doesn't make much sense to me. > OK. This makes sense. As you say, it's a different model from FastCGI so > I think you should create a new type of supervisord "program", something > like "inetd-program", "superserver-program" (inetd is sometimes called the > superserver) or "fork-program" (as opposed to prefork). I think your > servers would be compatible with inetd so that might be a good name. > Along these lines, doesn't supervisor want to use stdin/out/err for it's own purposes (event mechanism and logging support)? So would it make more sense to pass the socket as fd 3? I see the fcgi-program code passing the connection as fd 0, but I guess that's to mimic how fcgi works, rather than what makes sense for supervisor? I have no requirement to be compatible with inetd/xinetd, so could just as well use fd 3 as fd 0... Am I correct in perceiving a conflict between supervisor compatibility and inetd/xinetd compatibility? Overall, it does not look that complicated. It looks like supervisord has >> the architecture already in place to support this. >> >> > I think you should be able to follow a similar pattern as I used for > fcgi-programs and create a new type of program. > > Yes, I think so. Should be able to (re)use a lot of your code, which will make this easier. :-) Thanks! -Bruce
_______________________________________________ Supervisor-users mailing list Supervisor-users@lists.supervisord.org http://lists.supervisord.org/mailman/listinfo/supervisor-users
