j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 08:49:52PM -0500, Jesse Noller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Trent Nelson
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 08:18:51AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Jesse Noller email@example.com writes:
Windows Services != Unix daemons. Admittedly, I haven't had to do it in awhile, but from what I remember, windows services are nowhere near the same type of beast as a unix daemon, and trying to make a unified daemon library that glosses over the differences might cause seizures and habitual smoking.
A unix-only daemon - and then a complimenting windows-only service library - makes sense. Ideally, they would have close to the same API, but I don't think log jamming all of the vagaries of both into one beast makes sense. Then again, my windows-ability is out of date and rusty.
See, I disagree with that as well. Take a look at what Qt did with their QtService class: http://doc.trolltech.com/solutions/qtservice/qtservice.html The Trolls are particularly good at abstracting wildly different Unix/Windows-isms into a single, usable, unified interface. The key is not thinking in terms of writing a Windows service or a Unix daemon, but in terms of providing an abstraction that makes sense to implement as a daemon on Unix and a service on Windows. I'd like to hear arguments for why that QtService interface is perceived as being deficient. If the argument is simply that the PEP author is not familiar with Windows, then I'm sure those of us that are would much rather help out with a cross-platform solution than have yet another avenue for people to write Python code that doesn't work on the most widely deployed platform in the Universe.* Trent.
[*] Citation needed.