On 8 September 2011 14:03, Ray Rashif <schiv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 8 September 2011 19:35, Alessio 'Blaster' Biancalana > <dottorblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I like the idea, this seems KISS as it is now. >> It could be a better way to manage services, kudos! > > It could also be incorporated into the rc.d functions, making it > elegant to use from within the scripts. > > The question is, can a few lines of shell code (as has been > demonstrated by the bugfix in the bug report above), manage the > problem sufficiently? If yes, then a full, separate program to handle > this stuff is _not_ KISS. KISS is a good argument against overcomplicated architectures. A code base with copies of the same boilerplate code is a good argument against KISS. So, KISS and abstraction are sometimes opposing forces. In this discussion, I have to argue for the abstraction given the sheer amount of script that are out there in the wild. If we touch them all, we should touch them in a way that our gain from this effort is not strictly limited to one specific deployment of a single fix. You could call it premature abstraction if you will. This should give us a single knob you can turn when you need change in all of them. I am fine just as fine with making a rc helper function this knob as I am with going with start-stop-daemon. -- Fruhwirth Clemens http://clemens.endorphin.org
