IRC meeting

[Scott James Remnant]

On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 13:40 -0700, Shawn Rutledge wrote:

> On Nov 26, 2007 2:01 AM, Scott James Remnant <scott at netsplit.com> wrote:
> > disagree with your ratings as well (e.g. I would say that a monolithic
> > init is good, and plug-in based is bad).
> 
> Why do you think so?
> 
I strongly believe that in the majority of cases, plug-ins are entirely
unnecessary.  If a feature is so useful that everybody wants it, build
it in.  If not, make it simply unobtrusive so people who don't want it
don't need to use it.

Plug-ins are also a major source of exploit attack vector, since they
allow you to load arbitrary code.

In the case of init, if you need a plug-in architecture, something has
gone horribly wrong in the design phase.

All init needs to do is spawn processes, and reap them when they die;
with some handling for determining when it needs to do the former and
working out what to do about the latter.

Nothing else belongs in pid#1.

It's fine to write separate processes that communicate with init, and
ask it to spawn or stop processes on its behalf; but that's not a
plug-in architecture -- that's just decent IPC.

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/upstart-devel/attachments/20071126/b236843a/attachment.pgp