Re: depend take 2

[Jan-Henrik Haukeland]

Martin Pala <address@hidden> writes:

> *
> >If you mean, foo->bar, that is, foo depends on bar to run before it
> >starts, I think that the present syntax is better, since you can sort
> >of read it like: "check foo and depend on bar to be running".
> >
> I think we speak about same thing, but thinking about foo and bar in
> juxtaposition :)
> 
> 
> Preposition:
> There are processes foo and bar. Foo will not start until bar is up
> and running (foo depends on bar), in SYSVR5 language (just for
> start-up order example - it doesn't take care about real state of bar):
> 
> 
> /etc/rc3.d/S98bar
> /etc/rc3.d/S99foo
> 
> 
> 1.) Summary of present logic:
> 
> You must declare all dependencies for the master process
> configuration, so value of "depend" statement is name of the process,
> that should be started AFTER process where "depend" statement is
> mentioned:
> 
> 
> ###
> check bar with pidfile "/var/run/bar.pid"
> depend foo
> ...
> 
> check foo with pidfile "/var/run/foo.pid"
> ...
> ###
> 
> => check bar and its dependant foo that should be runned after bar
> 
> 
> 2.) Summary of the other  (proposed)  design:
> 
> You must use depend statement to declare master process, so value of
> "depend" statement is process, that should be started BEFORE process
> where "depend" statement is mentioned:
> 
> 
> ###
> check bar with pidfile "/var/run/bar.pid"
> ...
> 
> check foo with pidfile "/var/run/foo.pid"
> depend bar
> ...
> ###
> 
> => check foo and depend on bar to be running before foo
> 
> 
> Both designs are possible, it just about the "feeling". I thing second
> version is more usual/nature in real world, but it doesn't matter :)

Laying it out like that I can see your point. It *does* look more
logical, maybe what was confusing me a bit was the name of the
statement, that is, "depend", in your case the keyword should probably
be "dependant" which makes it more clear. What do you say Rory?

-- 
Jan-Henrik Haukeland