| |||||||||||||
Bazaar on the slow trackBazaar on the slow trackPosted Sep 14, 2012 16:23 UTC (Fri) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205)In reply to: Bazaar on the slow track by paulj Parent article: Bazaar on the slow track
> Though, there's no pressing reason why that job must be done by init…
Well, init is the job's parent, so it's uniquely positioned to notice when a job crashes -- and since init started the job, it's also uniquely qualified to /re/start it.
(Log in to post comments)
Bazaar on the slow track Posted Sep 14, 2012 17:51 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Well, no, you can trivially have other process managers in between init and your service processes. You could have one that was dedicated to network services, hey it could even handle opening the sockets, watching them and only launching the actual services if there was activity (sound familiar?). You could have another that was specialised to watch TTY lines (Novell UnixWare had one of those I think). You could have another one for whatever.
Or you can have a kitchen-sink system, where you put all this into init, and it has to support every possible need any kind of service will ever have.
Bazaar on the slow track Posted Sep 14, 2012 18:27 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Oo, hey! A micro vs. monolithic argument! Let's all voice our meaningless opinions.
Bazaar on the slow track Posted Sep 14, 2012 20:07 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
FWIW, I'm not taking a side. Just noting that both ways are possible. :)
Bazaar on the slow track Posted Sep 16, 2012 3:16 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Oh, ok. Can't disagree with that!
QotW material Posted Sep 18, 2012 22:04 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I would like to nominate your comment for "Quote of the week" for distributions, if it is not too late. It is sarcastic, it has the LOL factor, and it is true as life.
|
|||||||||||||