configuration files

[Dan Melomedman]

Chris Pressey wrote:
> Yes, it's definately cornered the simplicity market.
> 
> But I keep thinking, how complex could a service monitor possibly be
> anyway?  It's not like it's an XML parser :)
> 
> T'm no fan of select() either, and I'm sure each of those
> sub-supervisors doesn't take up much memory, but I also keep thinking
> that they wouldn't have to exist at all if the super-supervisor could do
> just a little more work.

You seem to be wanting to minimize for the number of processes, even though
those processes are very small, and all they're doing is waiting for the
child to exit so they can restart it. What makes you think a more
complex single process supervisor that has to do far more work is
better? Unix was designed around the idea of having a large number
of small programs that each perform a specific task. It is much easier to
write reliable, robust and secure software this way than to stuff everything
into a single executable. History proves this over and over.