[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       freebsd-hackers
Subject:    Re: Inetd and wrapping.
From:       John Baldwin <jobaldwi () vt ! edu>
Date:       1999-06-30 1:08:16
[Download RAW message or body]


On 26-Jun-99 Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 13:02:00 MST, Aaron Smith wrote:
>> with it. i didn't realize there was an extension already in place -- i
>> should have checked the man page over when i saw sheldon's first message
>> about "wait/10/10/nowrap".
> 
> There isn't. It's a proposed extension that might happen soon. :-)
> 
>> in order to make this compatible won't one have to specify the not-so-pretty
>> "wait/0/0/nowrap"? i guess "wait/nowrap" could be made to work. that's less
>> ugly.
> 
> Actually, any of the following ought to work:
> 
> wait/nowrap   wait/10/nowrap  wait/10/10/nowrap
> wait/nowrap/10        wait/10/nowrap/10
> 
> As well as the previous permutations available. We're lucky because
> "nowrap" isn't a number, so it can't be confused with a request to set
> max_child nor max_cpm.
> 
>> i am less bothered by this change given the maxchild precedent, if there
>> are definitely people who will *use* this. if people don't actually use it,
>> it will just become a chunk of legacy extra-complexity.
> 
> I think you may have as many as two people using it. :-\

As I said earlier, if no else wants this and if everyone hates this (which
appears to be the case), then you don't have to add it.. majority rule wins. 
Some viable solutions (such as running two inetd's and sucking up the rather
small performance hit and running regular tcpd) have been offered so that the
rare functionality I mentioned is still available.  I didn't realize adding
another tunable know was such an evil hack (I did realize that my original idea
of using a seperate flag was an evil hack and has made the original suggestion
in a previous post of the wait/(wrao|nowrap) thingamajig).  Guess "show me the
code" doesn't always work.. :)

>> all: sorry if i came off too strident. i have a sore spot for feeping
>> creaturism. :)
> 
> Don't be sorry. It's about time people started articulating my rebuttal.
> ;-)
> 
> I don't think the core team would care enough about something this silly
> to bother making a decision, so I'm just watching what people have to
> say. I'm leaning toward leaving the "nowrap" feature out.

If it hurts, then by all means.  If not, then why design out extra
configurability?  However, it's no big deal and I'll be content with whatever
decision you come to.  Note that this would solve the -w(e|i) solution that
Doug(?) requested in a more orthogonal way...

> Ciao,
> Sheldon.

---

John Baldwin <jobaldwi@vt.edu> -- http://members.freedomnet.com/~jbaldwin/
PGP Key: http://members.freedomnet.com/~jbaldwin/pgpkey.asc
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!"  -  http://www.freebsd.org


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]