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
X-Authentication-Warning: shell-3.enteract.com: fcy set sender to fred AT ontosys DOT com using -f
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 09:33:20 -0500
From: Fred Yankowski <fred AT ontosys DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Updated: cygrunsrv-0.92-2
Message-ID: <20010521093320.B41450@enteract.com>
References: <20010517161408 DOT A60686 AT enteract DOT com> <20010521095336 DOT D759 AT dothill DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20010521095336.D759@dothill.com>; from Jason.Tishler@dothill.com on Mon, May 21, 2001 at 09:53:36AM -0400

Jason,

On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 09:53:36AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
> 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?

OK, I'll do that.  But so far I've received very little feedback from
the core PG team.  One note I do remember -- was it from Peter E? --
was strongly in favor of using a wrapper separate from PostgreSQL
proper.

> 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.

I agree, particularly when the service can run without having to fork
into separate supervisory and application processes.  Unfortunately,
applications that use signals seem to require such a fork because
Cygwin signal handling currently does not play well with multiple
threads, and multiple threads are essential at the top level of the
service.

> I was wondering whether or not it was worth it to structure cygrunsrv as
> a library and a "main."

I like that idea for the reasons you give.  However, the only current
NT-service-ized Cygwin process that would benefit from that is
ipc-daemon, and other posters gave me the impression that it's not
worth investing much more time in ipc-daemon (perhaps I misunderstood
though).

-- 
Fred Yankowski           fred AT OntoSys DOT com      tel: +1.630.879.1312
Principal Consultant     www.OntoSys.com       fax: +1.630.879.1370
OntoSys, Inc             38W242 Deerpath Rd, Batavia, IL 60510, USA