Project review: Parallel KDC

[Nicolas Williams]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:28:10PM -0500, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 17:54 -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >  - I don't see the need for two options.  One option will do.
> 
> To clarify, I am only adding one option (-w NUM).  The project proposal
> mentions an existing option (-n) as being exclusive with -w, because
> "don't fork, but fork off 5 worker threads" doesn't make sense.
> 
> Or at least, that was my thinking at the time.  Since then, it became
> clear to me that there needs to be a supervisor process to make the
> existing -P pidfile option meaningful.  -n -w 5 could mean "fork off
> five worker threads and run the supervisor in the foreground."  I don't
> know what would be a good application for that, other than perhaps the
> test suite.

I agree, these are not really mutually exclusive.

Nico
--