On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:03:53 +0200 "Roberto E. Vargas Caballero" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can you explain this feeling?. Maybe I am wrong, but I think Unix > authors didn't share your opinion because listen(8) of plan9 is the > same idea that inetd (but better done because listen doesn't need > to parse any configuration file). The plan 9 engineers have been the original UNIX-authors, but in many ways, they have taken different approaches with plan 9. The case is really simple: An event-driven tool of this kind would, if aimed to go after the unix-philosophy, bind to specified sockets, filter the information with certain rules and pass each on to different sockets (like a pipeline). Everything else (config files, service-folders, ...) is just a way to go around the already powerful systems the os provides, so that's why I think that inetd sucks. --- We may discuss this even more, but the case is really simple: Developing quark, the goal is to 1) bind to a port 2) chroot to a folder 3) serve files and cgi-requests Providing compatibility for an event-driven network-daemon is not a goal, as there are ways to do it with the current model by binding quark to a "filtered" socket and let a suckless program do the filtering. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN <[email protected]>
