[Python-ideas] Draft PEP: Standard daemon process library
ben+python at benfinney.id.au
Thu Jan 29 03:35:21 CET 2009
Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> writes:
> Perhaps; but it makes sense to nest it under the abstraction -
I really don't think it's helpful to conflate this “service” model
with the much simpler concept of a Unix daemon.
To implement a service on Unix, it's most logical to use a daemon; but
the reverse is definitely not true (which is a large part of my
resistance to expanding the current PEP to conflate the two concepts).
Instead, I think that people who want a “service” would be better
served by a top-level module named ‘service’, to preserve that concept
as separate from the concept of a daemon.
In other words, my understanding is: ‘import service’ should get an
API (so far in no PEP that I know of) for a distinct purpose, that of
implementing an MS Windows-style service, which uses whatever
OS-specific implementation makes sense.
‘import daemon’ gets a totally different API for a different purpose,
that of turning the current running program into a daemon, which
AFAICT only makes a whole lot of sense on Unix and is what I'm
proposing in this PEP.
It makes much more sense for ‘daemon’ to stay simple and continue to
mean the Unix-specific concept of “daemon”, without necessarily
obstructing whoever wants to implement ‘service’, than for ‘daemon’ in
Python to mean something other than the Unix meaning.
\ “No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.” |
`\ —Turkish proverb |
More information about the Python-ideas