Re: Daemons [Was: gob inside gnome-vfs ...]

[Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>]

On 26 Jun 2002, Michael Meeks wrote:

> Hi Seth,
> 
> On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 01:37, Seth Nickell wrote:
> > > They're a bit of a pain from an administrative and support perspective,
> > > things like oafd/bonobo processes lying around (Michael says the b-a one
> > > cane be fixed now, with some careful thought), gconfd versions,
> > > gnome-settings-daemon running or not, etc.
> 
> 	They shouldn't lie around, so ...
> 
> > I would propose we create a single super-daemon which you can write
> > "plugins" for (that run in their own threads).
> 
> 	Sigh - this is really not going to work nicely - especially since you
> almost always want to use CORBA to communicate with the daemon - and
> that's not going to like threads.
> 

Huh? There is no inherent conflict between corba and threads. Gnome needs
to come out of the dark ages and get to the point where it "just" supports
threads anyways. 

> 	Also, it would seem to make no sense to glub together a gnome-vfs
> daemon, the gconf daemon, the a11y daemon and bonobo-activation (eg.)
> 
> 	I think it's probably better to make bonobo-activation more intelligent
> with respect to daemons & displays [ a <daemon> tag in the .server file
> ? ] - and allow it to fork / reap daemons as the desktop starts / exits
> etc.
> 
> 	I don't think there is really a problem with lots of small daemon
> processes, as long as they all go away cleanly - especially if they have
> distinct roles. The stability argument alone is quite telling I think.
> 

I think you just forgot to multiply it by 50 or 100 for midsized multiuser
machines. Why introduce a lot of daemons that most of the time are of
little use to the user?

> 	Regards,
> 
> 		Michael.
> 
> -- 
>  mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
> 

	Sander

	you'll rescue me right?
	in the exact same way that they never did
	i'll be happy right?
	when your healing powers kick in