On Sun, 06.10.13 21:11, Brandon Philips (bran...@ifup.co) wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Lennart Poettering > <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > > So, yeah, if you respond to each UnitNew signal you get with a property > > Get/GetAll call, then this will result in endless ping pong, which is > > certainly not a good idea. > > > > What are you trying to do? Write some tool that tracks all units that > > are loaded? > > Yes, I want to register services into a networked service registry. An > example use case would be an HTTP load balancer that is service > registry aware and adds machines to the load balancer based on certain > unit files appearing/leaving. > > An alternative solution is making a user explicitly add a > service-registry-notifier@.service to my-application.service.wants but > I wanted to avoid making registration a special case. For example: > https://gist.github.com/philips/6710008 > > Maybe there is a middle ground solution? Does it makes sense to send > LoadState with UnitNew? I will have to look tomorrow because I think > without that trying to do other things gets racy with transient units.
Hmm, so I thought a bit about the issue. If I got this right, then you get the UnitNew, immediately issue a Get/GetAll, then you get a UnitRemoved, then you get another UnitNew, and then the response to Get/GetAll, right? If so, it would work to simply ignore all UnitNew signals between the response and the request, no? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
