[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#60657: Rethinking how service extensions work
|
From: |
Bruno Victal |
|
Subject: |
bug#60657: Rethinking how service extensions work |
|
Date: |
Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:31:05 +0000 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.1 |
On 2023-01-08 12:31, Bruno Victal wrote:
> (...) the issue arises from using activation-service-type to create
> files/directories for services
> when these should be either (1) shepherd one-shot services or moved into the
> 'start' procedure of the service.
Idea:
Instead of moving these procedures into the start procedure from
shepherd-service and end up with a very
large start constructor, we could augment <shepherd-service> with a 'pre-start'
field that is responsible for
setting up the initial conditions for the service. That is, we move most of the
code in the activation-service-type extensions
into this 'pre-start' field. We could also consider if it would make sense
adding post-start, pre-stop and post-stop fields.
Cheers,
Bruno