supervision

[Helio Chissini de Castro]

On Saturday 09 August 2014 09:20:18 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Saturday, August 9, 2014 00.31:23 Samuel Gaist wrote:
> > On 5 août 2014, at 22:34, Aaron J. Seigo <aseigo at kde.org> wrote:
> > > unless i can find a really compelling use case, i'm probably going to
> > > leave it out at least for now and add it later if it turns out to be
> > > actually useful.
> > > 
> > > i do like the "cleanliness" of having supervisors do only that:
> > > supervise.
> > 
> > +1 for the cleanliness.
> 
> It is decided, then :)
> 
> > Is there any limit on how deep a tree can go ?
> 
> No.

I have a fundamental question on this pattern considering who "owns" the supervisor.
Imagining a regular unix process idea, we can have several processes, but each one 
has different owners.
In a rough mode, imagine that kernel is a supervisor of root ownership, but we can 
plug on it another "tree" of processes, but ownered by another ownership, not root, a 
common user.

Passing this idea to the supervisor pattern, should we allow, even more, should be 
possible to have different supervisors ownership on same structure, and as Aaron 
mentioned before, the top process can control the lower ones ?

[]'s Helio

-- 
Helio Chissini de Castro
KDE and Linux Developer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kde.org/pipermail/funq-devel/attachments/20140811/e541f301/attachment.html>