On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 00:30 +0200, Leon Timmermans wrote: > I can't help wondering "why does pid_file_handler need to be split up > in the first place?" Why wouldn't it be possible to simply call > pid_file_handler after become_daemon?
Two answers: 1. If an error occurs that will not allow the PID file to be created (another copy of the daemon is already running, the user doesn't have required root permissions, or what have you), the program should die visibly at the command line, rather than *appearing* to launch but actually just spitting an error into the syslog and disappearing silently. Checking for another running daemon and taking ownership of the pid file should be an atomic operation (or at the very least err on the side of failing noisily if something fishy happens), so I can't just check for an existing pid file before daemonizing, and then create the new pid file after. It's not visible in the code I posted, but the program should also do a number of other sanity checks before it daemonizes, for the very same reasons. For example, it should load all modules it expects to use before becoming a daemon, and complain loudly if it can't. 2. The particular code I used is just a decent example to ask about the general question of a better syntax for interrupting and continuing a sub. So even if I could do what you say, I'd still have the question. :-) -'f
