[Win32utils-devel] win32-service patch
phurley at gmail.com
Tue Jun 20 17:45:34 EDT 2006
On 6/20/06, Berger, Daniel <Daniel.Berger at qwest.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: win32utils-devel-bounces at rubyforge.org
> > [mailto:win32utils-devel-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of
> > Patrick Hurley
> > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 10:31 AM
> > To: Development and ideas for win32utils projects
> > Subject: [Win32utils-devel] win32-service patch
> > Attached is a patch and my service.c if there is any
> > difficulty applying the patch. I did the following:
> Do you want to rework this in light of Paul Brannan's suggestion to use
> TRAP_BEG and TRAP_END or sem_wait?
> In the meantime I should mention that I'd like to move the Service class
> (not the Daemon class) over to a pure Ruby solution.
> This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or
> privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly
> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication
> in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
> all copies of the communication and any attachments.
> win32utils-devel mailing list
> win32utils-devel at rubyforge.org
The existing solution works and I do not think (although I would love
to find out I am wrong), TRAP_BEG/TRAP_END are magical enough to make
this easy. So I would say put it in as soon as it makes sense as it
fixes easy to reproduce bugs.
If I/we can develop a better solution it can be put in later -- I
personally need to do more testing before I trust threaded code using
an API that is undocumented (except in the source, which does not look
like it does anything more than prevent signals).
As for seperating service from daemon -- that makes a lot of sense it
is a little confusing as implemented -- at least partially because the
docs are describing two completely different types of functionality.
More information about the win32utils-devel