Tim Legant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That could work. What would we name the files, then? If the > directory is called, e.g., 'tmda-ofmipd', then repeating > 'tmda-ofmipd' seems redundant (and tedious for typing).
How about just port.pid, or if you add IP, ip:port.pid or something. > 'kill -9' is an abortion. It doesn't give the application a chance > to clean up. So no, the pid file will still be there. It was more of a hypothetical question. In practice, people do use SIGKILL to terminate applications even though that might be overkill. >> Why is a warning in order? > > Because in all normal application end cases the pid file will have > been deleted. If you ever receive the warning, it's an indication > that something went wrong -- and that you should probably figure out > what. Sure, but doesn't the fact that tmda-ofmipd is no longer running also give you that same indication? The presence or lack of a pid file doesn't provide any more information that would help you solve the problem. > If you used 'kill -9', you know what happened and the warning won't > keep tmda-ofmipd from running. True. > So we're in agreement but for the warning. Does my explanation above > change your thoughts on this? Not really, but issuing a warning doesn't change functionality, so it really doesn't matter that much to me. I think if you keep the warning short and sweet I'll be fine with it. If people start to complain about this we can always revise later on. _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
