Re: [Patch] Revised resource-support [aka. "proc"-support]

[Jan-Henrik Haukeland]

Christian Hopp <address@hidden> writes:

> > Another thing, it doesn't make sense to have a
> > resource statement without an action does it? And if you require an
> > action you should also get out of the shift/reduce problem (and of
> > course, you where right about that %left operates on tokens)
> 
> I think it makes sense to have a default action to make config files
> less full.  

Well it's going to look like: IF(expr) ? While this is a better syntax
IMHO: IF(expr) THEN action. And it's really not that much more text.

> > > [zombie processes]
> > *
> The thing to remember... most probably we won't be even able to restart!

There's that. But I guess that in most situations and for most servers
it's possible to restart if we remove the pid file (as you hinted
at). Anyway it's probably best to only send an alert and not assume to
much.

> > 2.5.1 isn't released yet, so we could use this one.
> 
> I thought so... haven't been there any fixes, by now?

No, our product is rock solid :) Erhh but we have done several
non-fatal changes listed in CHANGES.txt

> > A good idea, I have to remove the new udp check code then. But this
> > code isn't exactely what I want anyway.
> 
> Maybe we should rest a bit about it and look in other
> implementations (like netsaint they do dns testing et al.).

Ah, I got hocked on that one, the current code works but is "bad form"
as Captain Hook says. I'm tempted to leave it in unless I can recode
it. I guess that I'll find a solution.

> > We could do something along the lines:
> >
> >  smtp_alert_timeout(Process_T p, char *reason, ...);
> >  smtp_alert_checksum(Process_T p, char *reason, ...);
> >  smtp_alert_restart(Process_T p, char *reason, ...);
> >
> > Where reason may be the NULL string (for no reason) or a printf style
> > format. Does this sound okay?
> 
> Yep.

I'm on it.

-- 
Jan-Henrik Haukeland