Re: proposal: inetd improvements.

[elric%imrryr.org@localhost]

On 1275659377 seconds since the Beginning of the UNIX epoch
Manuel Bouyer wrote:
>

>On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 02:46:41PM +0100, elric%imrryr.org@localhost wrote:
>> Right, and I'm proposing extending inetd to be able to subsume more
>> use cases which makes the requirements a bit more stringent.  I do
>> not think that it's a great idea to unnecessarily limit the
>> applicability of inetd to light-load services.
>
>No, what I'm saying is that it's wrong to discourage use of one inetd
>feature in documentation when it's really dependant on use case.

Okay, so now we have two examples of cases where this feature appears
to be superior to max outstanding kids:

        1.  you have a wait service and have a typo in the command, and

        2.  you have light load services where availability is unimportant.

I think that in order to encourage users to use this feature, we
should come up a better use case.  These two are insufficient
justification for such encouragement.  Especially given that max
number of outstanding kids perfectly well takes care of (2).

--
    Roland Dowdeswell                      http://Imrryr.ORG/~elric/