Re: [dev] A replacement for at.

From: Mattias Andrée <maandree_AT_kth.se>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 18:10:27 +0100

On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 18:05:58 +0100
Kamil Cholewiński <harry666t_AT_gmail.com> wrote:

> > Wouldn't you need a service supervisor with at's
> > functionallity?
>
> No. Separation of concerns.
>
> > If you are paranoid about sat crashing
>
> When in doubt, assume the component will crash/fail.
>
> > as long as you can have user-private services.
>
> Yes, please let's stop writing process management code
> into daemons and instead solve this problem in a portable
> and non-sucky way.

I'm not sure I understand that you are suggesting.


Received on Fri Jan 01 2016 - 18:10:27 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Jan 01 2016 - 18:12:16 CET