[Zope-dev] CVS Head: "Error Value: iterable argument required" when adding objects

[Jamie Heilman]

Jeremy Hylton wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 18:30, Jamie Heilman wrote:
> > Its desirable in some circumstances, but not all.  Part of the problem
> > is people tend to blindly follow the traditional approach to daemon
> > design without bothering to actually do any critical thinking.  
> 
> I expect you don't intend to sound rude, but this gives the impression
> you think I've failed to do some necessary critical thinking.  Even if I
> you think that, it's hardly diplomatic to point it out.

No I don't think you failed in any way, sorry if I gave that
impression.  I intended to bemoan the overall state of what are
generally espoused to be "best-practices" when it comes to daemon
design.  As you said, the umask code only comes into play when
explicitly asked for, and I think thats a really good thing, my
initial concern was that the umask would be set to a default value
regardless of the parent process's properties.
 
> > There are several very reasonable arguments for deviation from the
> > historical approach. 
> 
> What are they?

They were listed in the URIs, but the jist is that its better to let
small dedicated programs handle the daemonization and supervision of
long-running code, than it is to embed those gymnastics into the code
itself.

> I don't follow how this advice relates to the current discussion.
> We're talking about whether zdrun.py should have a --umask option.

Ah, well, you are maybe--to me I see an error thats carping about a
missing "umask" attribute value and no mention of zdrun, so it wasn't
immediately clear to me which aspects of zope the umask would apply
to.  Now that I know its part of a broad (entire process group)
control mechanism I'm less concerned.

> > Anyway, if you want to question authority, consider reading:
> > http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/unix-daemon-design-mistakes-to-avoid.html
> 
> I don't see how this questions authority.  It sounds entirely compatible
> with the design of zdaemon.

Well, yes, to an extent.  There's a large breakdown when it comes to
the design of event logging.

> (The TCP/IP stuff doesn't apply to zdaemon, and Zope works
> differently, but that's typical for app servers.)

agreed
 
> Are you familiar with zdaemon?

In purpose yes, but I don't use it in production.

-- 
Jamie Heilman                     http://audible.transient.net/~jamie/
"Paranoia is a disease unto itself, and may I add, the person standing
 next to you may not be who they appear to be, so take precaution."
						-Sathington Willoughby