Re: Daemons [Was: gob inside gnome-vfs ...]

On 26 Jun 2002, Michael Meeks wrote:

> Hi Seth,
> On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 01:37, Seth Nickell wrote:
> > > They're a bit of a pain from an administrative and support perspective,
> > > things like oafd/bonobo processes lying around (Michael says the b-a one
> > > cane be fixed now, with some careful thought), gconfd versions,
> > > gnome-settings-daemon running or not, etc.
> 	They shouldn't lie around, so ...
> > I would propose we create a single super-daemon which you can write
> > "plugins" for (that run in their own threads).
> 	Sigh - this is really not going to work nicely - especially since you
> almost always want to use CORBA to communicate with the daemon - and
> that's not going to like threads.

Huh? There is no inherent conflict between corba and threads. Gnome needs
to come out of the dark ages and get to the point where it "just" supports
threads anyways. 

> 	Also, it would seem to make no sense to glub together a gnome-vfs
> daemon, the gconf daemon, the a11y daemon and bonobo-activation (eg.)
> 	I think it's probably better to make bonobo-activation more intelligent
> with respect to daemons & displays [ a <daemon> tag in the .server file
> ? ] - and allow it to fork / reap daemons as the desktop starts / exits
> etc.
> 	I don't think there is really a problem with lots of small daemon
> processes, as long as they all go away cleanly - especially if they have
> distinct roles. The stability argument alone is quite telling I think.

I think you just forgot to multiply it by 50 or 100 for midsized multiuser
machines. Why introduce a lot of daemons that most of the time are of
little use to the user?

> 	Regards,
> 		Michael.
> -- 
>  mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot


	you'll rescue me right?
	in the exact same way that they never did
	i'll be happy right?
	when your healing powers kick in

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]