[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: proposal: inetd improvements.
On 1275659377 seconds since the Beginning of the UNIX epoch
Manuel Bouyer wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 02:46:41PM +0100, elric%imrryr.org@localhost wrote:
>> Right, and I'm proposing extending inetd to be able to subsume more
>> use cases which makes the requirements a bit more stringent. I do
>> not think that it's a great idea to unnecessarily limit the
>> applicability of inetd to light-load services.
>No, what I'm saying is that it's wrong to discourage use of one inetd
>feature in documentation when it's really dependant on use case.
Okay, so now we have two examples of cases where this feature appears
to be superior to max outstanding kids:
1. you have a wait service and have a typo in the command, and
2. you have light load services where availability is unimportant.
I think that in order to encourage users to use this feature, we
should come up a better use case. These two are insufficient
justification for such encouragement. Especially given that max
number of outstanding kids perfectly well takes care of (2).
Roland Dowdeswell http://Imrryr.ORG/~elric/
Main Index |
Thread Index |