On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 18:30, Jamie Heilman wrote: > Its desirable in some circumstances, but not all. Part of the problem > is people tend to blindly follow the traditional approach to daemon > design without bothering to actually do any critical thinking.
I expect you don't intend to sound rude, but this gives the impression you think I've failed to do some necessary critical thinking. Even if I you think that, it's hardly diplomatic to point it out. > There are several very reasonable arguments for deviation from the > historical approach. What are they? > historical approach. Perhaps the most relevant argument is the same > old one about the Unix design philosophy; many small programs working > together is more a flexible and ultimately useful approach than a monolithic > one-program-does-it-all design. I don't follow how this advice relates to the current discussion. We're talking about whether zdrun.py should have a --umask option. zdrun is a small program. It just allows some other program to run as a daemon. > Anyway, if you want to question authority, consider reading: > http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/unix-daemon-design-mistakes-to-avoid.html I don't see how this questions authority. It sounds entirely compatible with the design of zdaemon. (The TCP/IP stuff doesn't apply to zdaemon, and Zope works differently, but that's typical for app servers.) Are you familiar with zdaemon? Jeremy _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )