Re: [naviserver-devel] nsproxy API

[Stephen D. <sd...@gm...>]

On 10/6/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <zv...@ar...> wrote:
>
> On 06.10.2006, at 22:21, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
>
> > I vote for ns_exec and putting it into the core
>
> OK. Couple of simple thoughts agout that:
>
>    ns_exec ?-pool poolname? script ?arg ...?
>
> is nice and short. It uses the default pool
> (as Stephen is advocating).
>
> But... how would we create pools, configure pool-wide
> options etc pp? As I could not figure that out, I thought
> it would be better NOT to specify the action (i.e. exec)
> but the vehicle (the slave process) hence ns_slave.
> Now you can easly replace ns_proxy with ns_slave and
> all (most) subcommands read nice...
>
> So we have now:
>
>    ns_process
>    ns_exec
>    ns_slave
>
> ns_slave and ns_process specify the thing and subcommands
> the action. it is trivial to expand to include pool
> management commands but api is rather "large" or "clumsy".
>
> ns_exec specifies an action only. it is difficult to fit
> in any other "action" for pool management for example
> but is small and compact.
>
> Any other idea?
>
> (Sometimes it can ve REALLY difficult to give baby a name...)
>


ns_exec works for me as well.  I guess the wording doesn't work so
well for the sub-commands, but it does explicitly say what's special
about this command, whereas you'd have to read the docs for ns_salve.

ns_process is a good idea, but it feels like a very generic word to
me.  It could imply an individual OS process, but I also think of it
more as an action: to process: 'do stuff' to this thing: 'process the
loan application, Miss Higgins...!'