On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 18:30, Jamie Heilman wrote:
> Its desirable in some circumstances, but not all.  Part of the problem
> is people tend to blindly follow the traditional approach to daemon
> design without bothering to actually do any critical thinking.  

I expect you don't intend to sound rude, but this gives the impression
you think I've failed to do some necessary critical thinking.  Even if I
you think that, it's hardly diplomatic to point it out.

> There are several very reasonable arguments for deviation from the
> historical approach. 

What are they?

> historical approach.  Perhaps the most relevant argument is the same
> old one about the Unix design philosophy; many small programs working
> together is more a flexible and ultimately useful approach than a monolithic
> one-program-does-it-all design.

I don't follow how this advice relates to the current discussion.  We're
talking about whether zdrun.py should have a --umask option.  zdrun is a
small program.  It just allows some other program to run as a daemon.

> Anyway, if you want to question authority, consider reading:
> http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/unix-daemon-design-mistakes-to-avoid.html

I don't see how this questions authority.  It sounds entirely compatible
with the design of zdaemon.    (The TCP/IP stuff doesn't apply to
zdaemon, and Zope works differently, but that's typical for app

Are you familiar with zdaemon?


Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to