On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Ertugrul Söylemez <ert...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > Instead a lot of services can be treated as a sequence of isolated > > containers, and a small set of "load-balanced", mutable service entry > > points. Namespace magic can make a lot of previously global state, > > local, such as ports, pid-files, log files etc. > > > > For these kinds of services, you don't need graceful shutdown, which is a > > great simplification, similarly to what docker typically provides. > > > > I feel that a great design in this area should blend well with > distributing > > services across machines, failover, etc. which are concerns that systemd > > doesn't start to cover. > > That's a very good summary of why I want to implement my proposal. Let > me see if I can get a working prototype. This sounds a lot like Disnix! How would it be similar? How would it be different? -Colin
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
