Roger Hoover wrote:
> Hmmm...the more I think about it., socket_owner and socket_mode are 
> indeed better names.  Chris/Mike, do you want to weigh in on consistency 
> vs. clarity?

I'd be fine with either.

- C


> 
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Roger Hoover <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Grzegorz Nosek <[email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>         On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 08:33:28AM -0700, Roger Hoover wrote:
>          > I'm most of the way there on #2.  The issue is that as far as
>         I can tell
>          > there's no way to find out the umask for a user so I don't
>         automatically
>          > know what permissions to chmod the FCGI socket with.  Now,
>         the choices are
>          >
>          > a) Don't chmod the FCGI socket, just chown it to the uid/gid
>         of the user the
>          > process will run as
>          >
>          > b) Add socket_chown, socket_chmod args that only apply to
>         unix domain
>          > sockets.  This allows the most control for the user but the
>         fact that the
>          > params don't always make sense is a bit awkward.
>          >
>          > [fcgi-program:test]
>          > command=/foo/bar.fcgi
>          > socket=unix:///tmp/test.socket
>          > socket_chown=rhoover:wheel ; this option would only apply to
>         unix domain
>          > sockets
>          > socket_chmod=0777 ; this option would only apply to unix
>         domain sockets
>          > user=nobody
>          > process_name=foo_%(process_num)s
>          > numprocs=2
>          >
>          > Anyone have an opinion here?
> 
>         I'm for explicit owner and mode options. Apache-style FastCGI
>         wrappers
>         are a pain.
> 
> 
>     Thanks.  I was leaning this direction.
>      
> 
> 
>         Also, my vote would go to naming these options "socket_owner" and
>         "socket_mode" (or "socket_perm(s)"?) as I've heard enough of
>         "setting
>         chmods" in my day ;)
> 
> 
>     That makes sense but I'm going for consistency with the existing
>     unix_http_server section of the config. 
>     http://supervisord.org/manual/current/configuration.html#unix_http_server
>      
> 
> 
>         Best regards,
>          Grzegorz Nosek
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Supervisor-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.supervisord.org/mailman/listinfo/supervisor-users

Reply via email to