apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>
Subject Re: apr_proc_create
Date Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:14:43 GMT
At 01:12 PM 11/20/2002, Ich Selbst wrote:
>> IIRC... if you do this, you lose stdin/out/err, which are set up
>> by the cmd engine.  I believe this is the reason that flag wasn't
>> used.
>No. If the app uses stdin and normal out, then the flag will have
>no effect (according to the docs). And if you want to start
>an app invisible then you don't need stdin/out/err anyway.

Most applications we've envisioned APR used do communicate
with the parent process through stdin/out/err.  Some alternate
method needs to be created for WinCE (which has no std handles)
but at this moment, changing this would break many APR users.

>I'd rather loose stdin/out/err if I want to start an app invisible
>(the app won't crash, those streams are just redirected to the void).
>Right now every app which is started invisible will still pop
>up the console window which is very disturbing (try merge
>command with subversion -> subversion then calls the diff
>commands to do the job and the console is shown).

Well, we know if standard handles were set up for the child
process.  If they are all absent (NULL), I don't see a problem with 
setting this flag.

Let me spend a little time tommorow considering a patch before
I apply any fix.  Thanks.

>If you need the console then the app should be started with
>other flags - or started not directly but with "cmd /c <appname>".

Huh?  Definately not.  The *standard* use case for creating any
processes is that the parent process needs to communicate with
the newly created process.  There is *no* reason to add the extra 
footprint of invoking a shell, when the image to launch is executable.

>btw: what does IIRC mean?

If I Recall Correctly... 

View raw message