On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 13:02:00 MST, Aaron Smith wrote:
> hey, that's a pretty neat feature. i confess i wasn't aware of that. out > of curiosity, can old inetds read this without choking? No, the extension would cause older inetd's to barf. > agreed; what i was trying to get at is the mental difference in dealing > with it. i didn't realize there was an extension already in place -- i > should have checked the man page over when i saw sheldon's first message > about "wait/10/10/nowrap". There isn't. It's a proposed extension that might happen soon. :-) > in order to make this compatible won't one have to specify the not-so-pretty > "wait/0/0/nowrap"? i guess "wait/nowrap" could be made to work. that's less > ugly. Actually, any of the following ought to work: wait/nowrap wait/10/nowrap wait/10/10/nowrap wait/nowrap/10 wait/10/nowrap/10 As well as the previous permutations available. We're lucky because "nowrap" isn't a number, so it can't be confused with a request to set max_child nor max_cpm. > i am less bothered by this change given the maxchild precedent, if there > are definitely people who will *use* this. if people don't actually use it, > it will just become a chunk of legacy extra-complexity. I think you may have as many as two people using it. :-\ > all: sorry if i came off too strident. i have a sore spot for feeping > creaturism. :) Don't be sorry. It's about time people started articulating my rebuttal. ;-) I don't think the core team would care enough about something this silly to bother making a decision, so I'm just watching what people have to say. I'm leaning toward leaving the "nowrap" feature out. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
