On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:43:39 +0100
Dimitris Papastamos <dp_AT_spl9.org> wrote:
> I am personally a fan of inetd and I think that there's nothing
> inherently wrong with the concept.
That's debatable, but honestly, this topic is not that important.
> A simple inetd implementation would be nice to have. It means that
> you can just code a daemon without any networking related code and
> just let inetd hook up stdin/stdout/stderr to the sockets.
>
> You can sort of hack around this using nc + simple shell scripts.
>
> A suckless inetd should be relatively straightforward to implement.
I trust you there. A suckless implementation would be cool, given it's
used very frequently.
> I am not sure if quark should support inetd though, as we would need
> to support both inetd and the builtin networking code.
It wouldn't make much sense.
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Tue Aug 12 2014 - 18:13:02 CEST