Re: Another lintian release for squeeze?
Raphael Geissert <geissert@debian.org> writes:
> Heh, yeah. Those were terribly-chosen names but I lacked imagination
> that day :) What do you suggest to use as names instead of fork() and
> exec()?
background() and run() maybe?
> what about the interface to reap jobs?
wait() seems fine there. It's doing basically the same thing as
CORE::wait().
> Maybe wait(), when passed a hash ref, should return the value of the
> hash member that was reaped, when called in scalar context. In array
> context it should probably return the key, value pair.
Seems reasonable to me.
> It seems that the only way to achieve what I want requires wait() to:
> a) call CORE::wait() to get the pid and $? of the reaped process.
> b) call $cmd->pid() for every member of the hash it was passed to see which
> of the processes was the one that finished. Needs to be done this way
> because we could otherwise end up reaping more jobs, if waitpid($pid,
> WNOHANG) was used.
> c) tell the $cmd object what the return status was. This requires a getter
> and a setter to be added to the OO interface. The former should probably
> refuse to set the return status if $self->wait() doesn't return -1.
Yup, that sounds right.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: