Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 09:53:36 -0400
From: Jason Tishler <Jason DOT Tishler AT dothill DOT com>
To: Fred Yankowski <fred AT ontosys DOT com>
Cc: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Updated: cygrunsrv-0.92-2
Message-ID: <20010521095336.D759@dothill.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Fred Yankowski <fred AT ontosys DOT com>, cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20010517161408.A60686@enteract.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Organization: Dot Hill Systems Corp.

Fred,

On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 04:14:08PM -0500, Fred Yankowski wrote:
> I somehow overlooked Cygrunsrv until now.  Although I've been working
> on adding functionality into the PostgreSQL program to run as an NT
> service -- much as is done in inetd and ipc-daemon -- I'm tempted to
> use Cygrunsrv instead as a wrapper.

I read all of the posts on Friday and was tempted to respond, but due to
mixed feelings I held off to mull over the issues during the weekend.
Unfortunately, I'm still not sure which solution is better:

    1. wrapping postmaster with cygrunsrv
    2. direct conversion of postmaster to a true NT service

Would you be willing to pose this question to pgsql-cygwin AT postgresql DOT org
and possibly pgsql-ports AT postgresql DOT org, to see if anyone (especially
the core PostgreSQL development team) has a strong preference?

All,

Now back to the cygrunsrv...

On one hand, I like the idea of wrapping UNIX daemons with something
like cygrunsrv to ease the porting to NT.  On the other hand, there is
a certain appeal (at least to me) to have the UNIX daemon run as a true
NT service without a wrapper.  However, this has caused code duplication
in at least the following:

    inetd
    ipc-daemon
    postmaster (assuming Fred's first approach)

I was wondering whether or not it was worth it to structure cygrunsrv as
a library and a "main."  In this way, the porter could choose between the
simple (and quick) wrapping approach or linking with the library approach
to get a true NT service.  The former approach would probably handle most
of the cases while the latter would only be needed for daemons with special
requirements.  In either case, code duplication would be minimized.

Jason

-- 
Jason Tishler
Director, Software Engineering       Phone: +1 (732) 264-8770 x235
Dot Hill Systems Corp.               Fax:   +1 (732) 264-8798
82 Bethany Road, Suite 7             Email: Jason DOT Tishler AT dothill DOT com
Hazlet, NJ 07730 USA                 WWW:   http://www.dothill.com