[Backgroundrb-devel] Delete a busy worker

Zachary Powell zach at plugthegap.co.uk
Thu Jan 3 22:38:03 EST 2008


For me it would be best (that's how the previous version worked) - though
presumably there'd be an easy way to do both. (delete_worker() or
kill_worker() etc). thanks.

On 1/3/08, Walter McGinnis <walter at katipo.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2008, at 10:37 AM, hemant wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 2008 2:10 AM, Walter McGinnis <walter at katipo.co.nz> wrote:
> >> I'm experiencing this, too.  I can delete a worker after it's
> >> finished it's
> >> finished executing a particular ask_work with :worker_method call,
> >> but I
> >> can't "abort" the worker early if I want to interrupt execution of
> >> ask_work.
> >>
> >> I do call delete_worker with both the :worker and :job_key specified.
> >>
> >> So I second Zach's problem.
> >>
> >
> > When you invoke MiddleMan.delete_worker(), you are actually calling
> > "exit" from within the worker. Thats the current implementation, and
> > by default your requests are queued and hence "exit" is not invoked
> > until, whatever worker is doing is finished. And hence the behavior.
> > But this can be changed and master can explicitly terminate a worker,
> > since it has process id of each worker, so will that be a more
> > desirable behavior?
> >
>
> For me it would be, yes.  I can't speak for others.
>
> Cheers,
> Walter
> _______________________________________________
> Backgroundrb-devel mailing list
> Backgroundrb-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/backgroundrb-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/backgroundrb-devel/attachments/20080103/844589c5/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Backgroundrb-devel mailing list