The problem with automatic daemonization is that there is no way to indicate startup failure: you just fire and forget the process in the...
The problem with automatic daemonization is that there is no way to indicate startup failure: you just fire and forget the process in the background. If the process dies, there's no clear way of knowing whether it was due to an error in startup conditions (possibly as simple as a configuration error) or a runtime failure at a later time. In the first case, restarting makes no sense. In the latter case it might be a reasonable option. With manual daemonization, the process can delay forking until it has ensured that its configuration is sound and it has the resources it needs. This way the parent process can indicate with its exit status whether the service was successfully launched.
Posted by lealanko on Jun 28, 2015, 7:50 PM
Tags
Related issues
- That isn't really relevant for the tool starting the container.
- Why is there no link to the source?
- Something I wonder about in this domain is if this is the fault of the language.
- Namespace pollution is an annoying problem in Rust.
- Currently, no language ports of Timefold Solver are planned.
- I agree with you, almost all .NET code I write is within the .NET framework, yet when I look at C# repos, it's disheartening to see so ma...
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.5,500 issues0 comments
hackernews (Software)
That isn't really relevant for the tool starting the container.
Why is there no link to the source?
Something I wonder about in this domain is if this is the fault of the language.
Namespace pollution is an annoying problem in Rust.
Currently, no language ports of Timefold Solver are planned.
I agree with you, almost all .NET code I write is within the .NET framework, yet when I look at C# repos, it's disheartening to see so ma...
Why is there no simple workaround for this?
I have been using https://github.com/jacktasia/dumb-jump to quickly jump to definitions.
The problem with automatic daemonization is that there is no way to indicate startup failure: you just fire and forget the process in the...
The problem with automatic daemonization is that there is no way to indicate startup failure: you just fire and forget the process in the background. If the process dies, there's no clear way of knowing whether it was due to an error in startup conditions (possibly as simple as a configuration error) or a runtime failure at a later time. In the first case, restarting makes no sense. In the latter case it might be a reasonable option. With manual daemonization, the process can delay forking until it has ensured that its configuration is sound and it has the resources it needs. This way the parent process can indicate with its exit status whether the service was successfully launched.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.