Re: proposal: inetd improvements.

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 03:14:34PM +0100, elric%imrryr.org@localhost wrote:
> 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).

I don't want our docs to encourage or discourage use of this feature.
Just document it. Period.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--