Uh, maybe "ns_process"? -- ReC
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Deasey Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:06 PM To: naviserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [naviserver-devel] nsproxy API On 9/19/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But lets go two steps back... > > You say you wanted to get ns_job and ns_proxy together. You also say > that this is not feasible because of the "eval" command. > Why? > The ns_job could be expanded easily to integrate the "eval" command, > but it would not make much sense (i.e. practical use). Well, exactly -- it doesn't make any sense. I think it would be a mistake to encourage people to do the wrong thing. There was a guy on the AOLserver list the other day, obviously experienced and smart, who 'forgot' that the proxy script ran in an external process, when that's basically the entire point, right? If we give people an ns_job eval command, they'll get confused about the purpose of job pools, too. I'm not sure how much real code sharing there would be between a combined job/proxy module. The back ends are different, processes can have more limits, the focus on parallelism versus isolation... > The oher thing, I do not like the "default" pool. I think the pool > (being the place to put common things shared across all slaves) > should be given explicitly. It would allow a simple 'set' command to configure parameters, like the limits stuff. The proxy pool 'default' already exists, and then you adjust it if you need to. With a default pool, we could alias the Tcl 'exec' command to run in a proxy pool. Although you can configure the binary to bootstrap the proxy processes, that's probably going to be rare. In fact most situations would probably be covered by a sane, default setup. If there's no default pool, then all user code which uses nsproxy will create it's own pool. With multiple pools there may be some which run out of resources while others have spare -- the pools are a hard partitioning of resources. > b. If we go that far then ns_exec_xxx is also not a suitable name as > we are not exec'ing anything really. A common reason to use the proxy module is to isolate calls to the Tcl exec command. The proxies must also execute an external process (default nsproxy). Just trying to get away from 'proxy'. Maybe something with 'ext', for 'external' in the name? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDE V _______________________________________________ naviserver-devel mailing list naviserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/naviserver-devel
