From boga at mac.com Thu Sep 13 06:35:35 2007 From: boga at mac.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?"Mikl=F3s_Fazekas"?=) Date: Thu Sep 13 06:35:51 2007 Subject: [launchd-dev] Starting launch agents Message-ID: Hi! We have a product that uses launch agents. We'd like to avoid the reboot after install, so we'd like start the agents for *all* the Aqua session-s from the installer. Is it something supported/possible? I tried to implement it by iterating through the '/tmp/launchd-*/sock' files and setting LAUNCHD_SOCKET to these files, then invoking the launchctl command. But it doesn't seems to do it. Any ideas? Regards, Miklos From zarzycki at apple.com Thu Sep 13 07:41:52 2007 From: zarzycki at apple.com (Dave Zarzycki) Date: Thu Sep 13 07:41:56 2007 Subject: [launchd-dev] Starting launch agents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68DB3C2D-D33B-452A-BE4A-99D36F6A89A5@apple.com> We know this is a weak spot right now (bug #5476420), but alas, Leopard to too close to being done to address this properly. I know what I'm about to suggest is unpleasant, but as the author, I'd be happier if users logged out and back in again for this to take effect. Finally, the LAUNCHD_SOCKET variable is an implementation detail that is likely to change in the OS release *after* Leopard. Sorry, davez On Sep 13, 2007, at 6:35 AM, Mikl?s Fazekas wrote: > Hi! > > We have a product that uses launch agents. > We'd like to avoid the reboot after install, so we'd like start the > agents for *all* the Aqua session-s from the installer. > > Is it something supported/possible? > > I tried to implement it by iterating through the '/tmp/launchd-*/ > sock' files and setting LAUNCHD_SOCKET to these files, then invoking > the launchctl command. But it doesn't seems to do it. > Any ideas? > > Regards, > Miklos > _______________________________________________ > launchd-dev mailing list > launchd-dev@lists.macosforge.org > http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/launchd-dev From vivacarlie at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 16:36:49 2007 From: vivacarlie at gmail.com (Nehemiah Dacres) Date: Fri Sep 14 16:36:55 2007 Subject: [launchd-dev] CMF vs LaunchD Message-ID: <65fadfc30709141636s5bde5640jc7046b0c49988cb5@mail.gmail.com> some one critiqes your talk on launchd in favor of Solarus's CMF, any comments? http://www.macgeekery.com/launchd_video#comments the comment is "The whole presentation was significantly longer and more verbose than it needs to be. I found two things interesting: ? for all the talk about making things easy to use, setting up launchd jobs without the use of a third-party app like Lingon is harder than it needs to be ? many of the shortcomings of launchd are already addressed by Solaris' SMF, e.g. dependency tracking between services, or monitoring all the subprocesses so that if a service is restarted, you don't have left-over orphaned child processes of the old service instance to get in your way" posted as anon. i agree with your not wanting to allow the user(admin) to fork and forget as your say but what about his other claim. any reply? -- "lalalalala! it's not broken because I can use it" http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=194281&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=15927703 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/launchd-dev/attachments/20070914/c737c256/attachment.html From zarzycki at apple.com Sun Sep 16 10:53:16 2007 From: zarzycki at apple.com (Dave Zarzycki) Date: Sun Sep 16 10:53:16 2007 Subject: [launchd-dev] CMF vs LaunchD In-Reply-To: <65fadfc30709141636s5bde5640jc7046b0c49988cb5@mail.gmail.com> References: <65fadfc30709141636s5bde5640jc7046b0c49988cb5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7912FC6A-AB75-4543-B6F6-B75C6D2FE081@apple.com> I wish not to respond to the anonymous comment directly. If you have any questions of your own, I would be happy to answer them. On Sep 14, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Nehemiah Dacres wrote: > some one critiqes your talk on launchd in favor of Solarus's CMF, > any comments? > http://www.macgeekery.com/launchd_video#comments > > the comment is > "The whole presentation was significantly longer and more verbose > than it needs to be. > I found two things interesting: ? for all the talk about making > things easy to use, setting up launchd jobs without the use of a > third-party app like Lingon is harder than it needs to be ? many of > the shortcomings of launchd are already addressed by Solaris' SMF, > e.g. dependency tracking between services, or monitoring all the > subprocesses so that if a service is restarted, you don't have left- > over orphaned child processes of the old service instance to get in > your way" > > posted as anon. i agree with your not wanting to allow the > user(admin) to fork and forget as your say but what about his other > claim. any reply? > -- > > "lalalalala! it's not broken because I can use it" > > http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=194281&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=15927703 > _______________________________________________ > launchd-dev mailing list > launchd-dev@lists.macosforge.org > http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/launchd-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/launchd-dev/attachments/20070916/9f584659/attachment.html