On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 13:40 -0700, Shawn Rutledge wrote: > On Nov 26, 2007 2:01 AM, Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > disagree with your ratings as well (e.g. I would say that a monolithic > > init is good, and plug-in based is bad). > > Why do you think so? > I strongly believe that in the majority of cases, plug-ins are entirely unnecessary. If a feature is so useful that everybody wants it, build it in. If not, make it simply unobtrusive so people who don't want it don't need to use it.
Plug-ins are also a major source of exploit attack vector, since they allow you to load arbitrary code. In the case of init, if you need a plug-in architecture, something has gone horribly wrong in the design phase. All init needs to do is spawn processes, and reap them when they die; with some handling for determining when it needs to do the former and working out what to do about the latter. Nothing else belongs in pid#1. It's fine to write separate processes that communicate with init, and ask it to spawn or stop processes on its behalf; but that's not a plug-in architecture -- that's just decent IPC. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- upstart-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel
