[PD] popen vs shell bug

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

On 2010-07-08 01:09, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> 
> I guess there should be a third inlet for the signals?  I see something
> like this:
> 
> STDIN      signals         process name
> |                  |                    |
> |                  |                    |
> [process /usr/sbin/httpd]
> |                  |                    |
> |                  |                    |
> STDOUT  STDERR     status messages, like PID, current process name,
> state, etc.



hmm, iirc "process name" is there mainly to override the process given
as the argument.

sending a new "process name" (e.g. "/usr/sbin/apache2") into the last
inlet surely won't start the new process, would it?
for me starting a new process seems to be a very "hot" action.

then i don't see a reason why we need different inlets for "process
name" and "signals", as both are there to control the the current/future
process from "outside".

so i would basically simplify this to the attached interface.


as for sending signals: even though i like signals very much, there is
no such concept on w32 (or at least it is not readily available for the
little programmer).
personally i would hate to have the 5th object for the same task that is
still highly platform dependent.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: process-example.pd
Type: text/x-puredata
Size: 1105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20100708/b500b84f/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3636 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20100708/b500b84f/attachment-0001.bin>