Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:25:40 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Updated: cygrunsrv-0.92-2 Message-ID: <20010521162540.L8783@cygbert.vinschen.de> Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com References: <20010517161408 DOT A60686 AT enteract DOT com> <20010521095336 DOT D759 AT dothill DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010521095336.D759@dothill.com>; from Jason.Tishler@dothill.com on Mon, May 21, 2001 at 09:53:36AM -0400 On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 09:53:36AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote: > On one hand, I like the idea of wrapping UNIX daemons with something > like cygrunsrv to ease the porting to NT. On the other hand, there is > a certain appeal (at least to me) to have the UNIX daemon run as a true > NT service without a wrapper. However, this has caused code duplication > in at least the following: > > inetd > ipc-daemon > postmaster (assuming Fred's first approach) > > I was wondering whether or not it was worth it to structure cygrunsrv as > a library and a "main." In this way, the porter could choose between the > simple (and quick) wrapping approach or linking with the library approach > to get a true NT service. The former approach would probably handle most > of the cases while the latter would only be needed for daemons with special > requirements. In either case, code duplication would be minimized. You're welcome to participate in the further development of cygrunsrv. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat, Inc.