On 04-Dec-2012, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Thanks for the working on the daemonizing problem.
Thank you for summarising your thoughts here. > Please CC me in reply, because I am not subscribed to the list. I would encourage you (and anyone interested in the ongoing discussion) to subscribe to the discussion forum, in order not to get the discussion fragmented by accident. > I figured that the interface suggested makes it very hard (or impossible) > to customize the process beyond the explicitly mentioned objects (such as > chroot_directory). […] > A library has to limit itself to common cases, so I can understand that > the daemon module does not cover this case. Unfortunately there is no way > (beyond monkey patching) to extend the library in this way as a user. The ‘DaemonContext’ class is designed to allow overriding behaviour through subclassing and the ‘super()’ mechanism, so I'm not sure what you would need monkey-patching for. Can you give a concrete example which can't be addressed by a custom ‘DaemonContext’ subclass? -- \ “The process by which banks create money is so simple that the | `\ mind is repelled.” —John Kenneth Galbraith, _Money: Whence It | _o__) Came, Where It Went_, 1975 | Ben Finney <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ python-daemon-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-daemon-devel
