Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 20:36:23 +0100
From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache Service Control
Message-ID: <20070708203623.121b962d@grimnir>
In-Reply-To: <46913924.2040604@list.za.net>
References: <46913924.2040604@list.za.net>
Organization: WebThing
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 21:21:08 +0200
Q Beukes <apache-dev@list.za.net> wrote:

> Why is it controlled with signals?

That is customary for daemons.  It works.

> To restart the process you need to send a HUP signal. This works fine,
> but what if you want to stop the server for a moment and then start it
> again, perhaps doing something in the mean while. This cannot be
> automated unless you watch the process/PID in some way.

You could send it SIGKILL and take the consequences.  Not that I'd
recommend that!  There are various techniques you can use for
scripting a shutdown: for example, polling it.

> This is fine for most purposes, but what if you want to stop what
> you're doing in case the shutdown fails. If the "httpd" binary would
> return a non-negative exit code

Return a code to whom?

> These are just some issues people have. Some people feel it's a bad
> design.

Why?

>	 Some people (like me) are not so sure what the idea behind it
> is.

To give the workers time to finish serving current requests rather
than aborting them.

We're open to patches if you have a better design.

-- 
Nick Kew

Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/