Re: [Exim] Small change to exiwhat

Nico Erfurth wrote:
> Iain Price wrote:
>
>> [the 'master daemon' idea in my other mail is much better than killall
>> anyway :]
>
>
> And would break/change the whole exim concept, so i would consider it
> BAD ;)

Lol!
Thats a bit unfair isn't it? I like the process responsibilities handed
out in exim, listener, q runner, deliver, receiver etc etc. I'm not
proposing that anything starts to have any control over anything else,
more like just bundling a very dumb thing onto the daemon that listens
for messages from children and just stores them, never replies at all,
and then just spits them out when asked.
(you could also ask the exim daemon to just print them to you as they
arrive - on tap 'state debugging' of a running live system?)

i know having any IPC that isn't text files on disks isn't the way exim
works atm, but that doesn't mean it's 'evil'. disk file communications
stop being useful at a certain point, and this is it, and info via
signals is not much safer, and isn't very powerful (you can't be sure
you didn't miss everything useful between polls :D).

Of course, exim isn't my baby :) Maybe someone could write a 'contrib
style' patch to implement this functionality for those who need it and
dont care about the purity of the IPC :) Give them the choice eh?

Iain