On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 08:35 -0500, Dimi Paun wrote: > On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 11:52 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote: > > I wrote a large number of WinNT/2K services and from my experience, > > it's the last system we'd want to duplicate. > > Thanks for your input. Those are implementation issues that we'd > want to avoid. What about the API though? Is the API a good starting > point? What did you like/dislike about it? > > -- > Dimi Paun <dimi@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Lattica, Inc. > The API itself... is well, a OS2/Windows API. (Translation: Very ordered with meaningful names and a lot of extra-useless options.) I believe that we should first decide on what-we-need, before looking at the API itself. Don't forget that unlike Microsoft Windows, most the services we would be running are normal daemonized binaries. IMHO, out service manager should: A. Handle normal daemonized binaries. (Duh!) B. Start/stop/reload services (Double duh). C. Handle multiple /dynamic/ dependencies . (One of the services I wrote actually replaced the MS dependency system due to the rather limited build-in SCM dependencies support) D. Handle auto restart, messaging on failure, etc. How the API will look in the end, is less important at this point. Gilboa -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
