[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: /etc/init.d structure [long rant]

On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Dima wrote:

> Assuming "runlevel" is roughly equivalent to "state", the above model is
> a stack of states.  A state transition diagram would be a (potentially fully
> connected) graph of states.  (Potentially) what a mess. :)
I don't think so. Just because it's potentially fully connected, it's not
necessary for its handling to be messy.
> Next question is how to define a "state" -- 6 basic states is what we have
> now.  If we want more states (finer grain) our graph becomes messier.
No,no. When we are talking about runlevels being a state, we should consider
only the handling of state transitions. The actual graph depends on the
actual usage, not anything else.
And we have 9 states at least, read the init man page.

> Stack is a much simpler structure -- easier to implement, less bugs etc.
> Besides, it's almost there already.
But it can be messy if you want real state machine. And you will definitely
want real state machine in some cases. I myself want state machine because I
make a mission critical system consisting of two machines. The system itself
has to have more states, and the machines may also want to change role
should some failure occur.
In this state of affairs I have to link K scripts for every single service I
dont't want to every single runlevel. It _is_ messy.
And once more: the actual state machine has nothing to do with the init
scripts, they only make up a state, and define a state transition. The state
machine have to be implemented by the availability demon (coming soon to the
GNU GPL: csak tiszta forrásból

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: