| 1 |
On Friday 26 February 2010 23:44:03 Harry Putnam wrote: |
| 2 |
> Where I'm weak is the part where the custom script checks if the |
| 3 |
> daemon is running, before the script itself starts. That part would |
| 4 |
> need to be something pretty fool proof... maybe just grep ps output |
| 5 |
> for the daemon? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't understand this approach. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
If the daemon is not running there's nothing in the fifo. Why got to all the |
| 10 |
complexity of writing an independent program that checks if something is |
| 11 |
running then does various actions? The script necessarily depends on the |
| 12 |
daemon running so instead of checking if it is, simply have the daemon start |
| 13 |
the script. No daemon running = no script launched = no complexity. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The script will simply accept what is it is given, no complex checks needed. |
| 16 |
Seeing as the input is from a logger, chances are you are inserting logs to a |
| 17 |
db, or launching a log analyser, right? Modern loggers support launching child |
| 18 |
scripts as a matter of routine. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If I'm still off-bat and this approach cannot work for solid technical |
| 21 |
reasons, then I'll go away and shut if if you say so :-) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives