Re: StartupItems
Re: StartupItems
- Subject: Re: StartupItems
- From: email@hidden (Peter Seebach)
- Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 03:42:41 -0500
In message <email@hidden>, Andrew White writes:
>Summary: the rc architecture is designed to support a "start once" model,
>with any dynamic restarting being done manually and in a controlled manner
>by a sysadmin. As soon as you create an environment where it's allowed and
>even expected that the goalpost can move at any time and the system should
>chase them then the rc system quickly shows its flaws. Since you have to
>support this dynamic system anyway, why not make startup work the same way,
>rather than special-case it?
UNIX philosophy at work, mostly; 10% of the code solves 90% of the problem.
For a huge variety of common cases, dependency ordering is simpler; that means
it requires less code, and that means it's less likely to be buggy.
I can see encouraging better support for dynamic code; what mystifies me is
simply declaring, by fiat, that the majority of existing programs that depend
on dependency ordering are definitionally not worth running, and it's not
worth providing the hooks to run them.
-s
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden