On 8 September 2011 14:03, Ray Rashif <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 8 September 2011 19:35, Alessio 'Blaster' Biancalana <dottorblaster@archlinux.us> wrote:
I like the idea, this seems KISS as it is now. It could be a better way to manage services, kudos!
It could also be incorporated into the rc.d functions, making it elegant to use from within the scripts.
The question is, can a few lines of shell code (as has been demonstrated by the bugfix in the bug report above), manage the problem sufficiently? If yes, then a full, separate program to handle this stuff is _not_ KISS.
KISS is a good argument against overcomplicated architectures. A code base with copies of the same boilerplate code is a good argument against KISS. So, KISS and abstraction are sometimes opposing forces. In this discussion, I have to argue for the abstraction given the sheer amount of script that are out there in the wild. If we touch them all, we should touch them in a way that our gain from this effort is not strictly limited to one specific deployment of a single fix. You could call it premature abstraction if you will. This should give us a single knob you can turn when you need change in all of them. I am fine just as fine with making a rc helper function this knob as I am with going with start-stop-daemon. -- Fruhwirth Clemens http://clemens.endorphin.org