Ohhhhhhhhhhhkkkkkkkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Geo's approach is really cool. Marc's approach is more typical.
You guys are free to choose either one. I'm sure that Geo thinks that Marc will get bit in the butt by his choice at some point, and Marc thinks that Geo is being weird. For sure you're both right. Paul and I have both posted about how we're planning on supporting both modes of operation; it's just a matter of getting the code right. Aaron On Tue, Mar 7, 2006, Geo Carncross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 21:56 +0100, Marc Dirix wrote: >> Using the &> and the sorts is just plain wrong. > > Why? > >> You want a daemon if it daemonizes itself to daemonize by itself without >> needing any shell implementation. > > No I don't. > > Daemons get started by the shell anyway. The shell is in a perfect > position to do this. > > My question is why do _you_ want a daemon that daemonizes itself? > >> In that way the daemon runs on any number off platforms, like w32 (if >> necessary). > > Win32 doesn't support the unix concept of daemons anyway, and the > "daemonizing" process used in unix doesn't work on Windows. > > -- > Internet Connection High Quality Web Hosting > http://www.internetconnection.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > Dbmail-dev mailing list > Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org > http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev > --
