Welcome to the Monastery | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Let's start with "Why open3?" Open3 provides me an easily method for splitting IO communication. Most of the stuff I deal with is over SecureShell and frankly I like the way the output is available via the appropriate handles. Moreover, the need to time out a process is highly needed no matter if the command is local or remote. Take the example of the 'df' command and HP-UX, what happens if one run the command and it hits a hung NFS file system? None of this was mentioned in either of your two threads. You offered this as an RFC:tutorial, not a chopped down version of a real application with an onerous set of very specific (and till now, unmentioned) technical requirements. I hope you realise that I cannot read your mind. I also think you may be missing the importance of ensuring that bad process do not remain in the process table. In my sample, I only attempted to meet the functionality of your latest code. Your latest code dropped the timeout and kill the process part, so I didn't implement it. But adding that functionality back to my sample code would require maybe 5 more lines. (For *nix, maybe 10 for Win32.) Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
In reply to Re^7: RFC: Using 'threads' common aspects
by BrowserUk
|
|