I'm not trying to debate the merits of backgrounding a process or not... :) Just trying to make it fit into the current redhat framework for starting daemons. The patch I posted included a -f flag to cause it to run foreground (current behavior). Perhaps I should change it to have a "-b" option (background) for those who wish to use it.
Comments anyone? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gre7g Luterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:11 AM Subject: Re: tmda-ofmipd: why does it not fork to background like normaldaemons? > On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:53:27 -0700, Bernard Johnson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Perhaps I have missed this in an earlier discussion... Is there a > > particular reason that tmda-ofmipd does not fork to the background > > like a normal daemon would? I have a patch that I'm using on my > > system now that makes it do this, as the init scripts parts of redhat > > seem to expect that behaviour. > > > > Is there a particular reason it doesn't do this already? > > According to DJB (not that I want to put the man up on a pedestal or > anything, but there's no denying that he speaks with knowledge and > experience), it is bad software design for a daemon to put itself into > the background. A well-written daemon should keep its own thread to > better allow the spawning program to monitor it (see > http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html for a good example of a supervisory > program). In fact, DJB even mentions how to work around poorly > written daemons that do disconnect themselves by using a pipe: > http://cr.yp.to/daemontools/faq/create.html#fghack > > Gre7g. > _________________________________________________ > tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers > _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
