Snap daemonization ordering and manual interface connections

[MikeB]

​Yes, I see your point.

Perhaps a concept of optional vs required is needed.

Mike​

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Kyle Fazzari <kyle.fazzari at canonical.com>
wrote:

> Hey Mike,
>
> On Jul 13, 2016 3:46 AM, "MikeB" <mabnhdev at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I understand why you want manual connections for some "critcal"
> interfaces.  However, if you're going to require manual intervention, the
> snapd should be smart enough to wait for the required connections before
> starting up any daemons that have plugs for those "critical" interfaces.
> Perhaps even nagging about unconnected plugs in the snap.
>
> I understand where you're coming from here. However, I can imagine
> use-cases where such a daemon can actually run successfully without one of
> its plugs (particularly when seccomp starts using ERRNO), and have extra
> functionality if it's connected. If snapd didn't start services until all
> their plugs were connected, such a scenario would be impossible. Also, keep
> in mind that the user can disconnect interfaces at any time, so ideally
> daemons would be able to handle such things (though I realize that's not
> always the case).
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Kyle
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/snapcraft/attachments/20160713/c6b9c3d9/attachment.html>