"Francesco Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all, > I just propose a poll to choose an architecture for the upcoming ( ;-) ) > MONO.SCM: > 1) > High Integration with SysV daemon structure: each mono service is a > different SysV daemon. > See Mathias previous post for an analysis of this option. > 2) > A unique SysV process which will be the MONO.SCM: each mono service will be > managed by these process. > See Mathias and Kai previous posts for an analysis of this option.
I would much prefer (1). It fits more into the Unix way of doing things, which makes it easier to use with other administrative scripts (or admin habits). I do not see any technically compelling reason to have a different parent process for "Mono Services," since they can be enumerated and controlled through other mechanisms. The only strong argument I have seen against (1) is that different systems have different semantics and locations for init.d scripts; that can largely be solved by having a single template script per system, or a script that looks at $0, to determine proper behavior. Even for (2), _some_ script must know how to integrate with the system's local daemon semantics, so it is not a problem unique to (1). Michael _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
