On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Andy Spitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Woof! > > On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:32:56 -0400, M. Ranganathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> One will be called symmitron and another will be called >> sipxbridge. Each will have its own process descriptor and be managed >> independent of the other. Both will use the same nat traversal library >> ( they will share code ) but they will run as independent processes. >> > > I understand the desire for independance (It's almost July 4th, after all!) > but starting up multiple JVMs just to enable independant control is something > I'm against. If Java "services" can share a JVM, I'm all for the memory > savings > that can provide. Independant control can be achieved differently, with > RPC calls or other comms environment than signals (which is what is used > today). > > Please recall the "stdin/stdout" control mechanism I outlined as a possible > part of the new Process manager. That would be one way of controlling > multiple "services" inside one JVM. > > > --Woof! > Scott made the point that we have only one service in the services page for each jvm. Each RPM is a single process and each process has an entry in the "services" page....
Can this be changed or is this too much to attempt at present? Ranga -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
