r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[Core] Discuss core issues

Graham
26-Mar-2010
[16148]
So, how does that work?  the core service launches a gui app that 
sits in the tray?
Steeve
26-Mar-2010
[16149x2]
the monitor don't necesseary have the need of a gui
the GUI could be another client process
Graham
26-Mar-2010
[16151]
No, the monitor doesn't need a gui
BrianH
26-Mar-2010
[16152]
That usually works by having the core service run on its own, the 
the tray app starting at user login, or on demand.
Graham
26-Mar-2010
[16153]
and the gui app communicates by tc to the service?
BrianH
26-Mar-2010
[16154]
Yup, or whatever other interprocess communication model you prefer 
(DBUS?)
Graham
26-Mar-2010
[16155x2]
so need some type of encrypted tcp communications ...
Just asking as I need to scale my apps as I get more and more users
BrianH
26-Mar-2010
[16157]
Has anyone made a /View tray app that has no default window other 
than the tray app, and maybe a options dialog?
Graham
26-Mar-2010
[16158]
Need to get rid of all the GUIs ..
Steeve
26-Mar-2010
[16159]
why that ? the monitor run on the same computer than the serices 
no ?
Graham
26-Mar-2010
[16160x2]
You can start a view app in the tray ...
No, the monitor may not be running on the same computer
Steeve
26-Mar-2010
[16162]
you want monitor the services on a local network ?
BrianH
26-Mar-2010
[16163]
It only needs to be encrypted if you are communicating between computers. 
It's much harder to break into localhost communication (afaik).
Graham
26-Mar-2010
[16164]
Yes monitor services on a number of servers
BrianH
26-Mar-2010
[16165]
Graham, it might be a good idea to have the monitor service on the 
same system as the processes it is monitoring, and then an overall 
monitoring interface that collects the info from the monitoring services 
on various computers.
Graham
26-Mar-2010
[16166]
Well, I hope so .. .currently I only have one server running ... 
but got to make it scaleable!
Steeve
26-Mar-2010
[16167]
hum ok, but if you want the monitor to be able to launch/kill proccesses, 
you'll need of a monitor on each server + a CENTRAL MONITOR to deals 
with all the monitors
BrianH
26-Mar-2010
[16168]
Right, Steeve, that's what I was saying (not as well).
Graham
26-Mar-2010
[16169x2]
So, the central monitor collates data from all the monitoring stations
so when a serice starts up, it registers with the local monitor, 
and somehow the PID is collected in case the monitor needs to kill 
it?
BrianH
26-Mar-2010
[16171]
Yup. And if the monitoring stations have local storage for their 
data, the central monitor could poll them instead of the other way 
around. That way you can restart the central monitor.
Graham
26-Mar-2010
[16172]
Ok, has anyone written such monitors in Rebol yet ?  :)
Steeve
26-Mar-2010
[16173x2]
lol
you have lot of client/server example around
Graham
26-Mar-2010
[16175x2]
Ok, I'll just setup a RPC server to act as the monitor
I won't be able to grab the PID without some Windows API I guess
Steeve
26-Mar-2010
[16177x4]
you don't necessarly need  of the PID.
On which OS are you running your apps ?
oh windows !
if it's to kill the processes, then you got this command http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/446/xp_kill_windows_process_command_line_taskkill/
very versatil
Graham
26-Mar-2010
[16181]
Windows 2003 and 2008
Steeve
26-Mar-2010
[16182x2]
you should have the same, no ?
I mean, to be able to kill a process just with its name
Graham
26-Mar-2010
[16184x2]
except I am running multiple processes with the same name
I really only need to remove a process if it has died ... and is 
sitting at the rebol error message
Steeve
26-Mar-2010
[16186]
just rename the exe
BrianH
27-Mar-2010
[16187]
Sysinternals has better ps utilities, which can do a better job of 
killing process if need be.
Rebolek
31-Mar-2010
[16188]
I need to do something like this:

>> a: context [b: context [c:1]]
>> get in a 'b/c
== 1

Is there some way to do this?
Pekr
31-Mar-2010
[16189]
the only chanined solution which comes to my mind is:

 get in get in a 'b 'c
Steeve
31-Mar-2010
[16190x2]
having,
>> to-path [a b c]
== a/b/c

you can get it with:
>> do to-path append [a] 'b/c
== 1
>> do head clear change change '_/_ 'a 'b/c
== 1
Rebolek
31-Mar-2010
[16192]
Pekr: that's what I need to avoid.
Ladislav
31-Mar-2010
[16193x2]
>> a: context [b: context [c: 1]]
>> do bind [b/c] a
== 1
is that more like what you want?
Steeve
31-Mar-2010
[16195]
haha, you won
Rebolek
31-Mar-2010
[16196]
Ladislav, exactly! Thanks
Pekr
31-Mar-2010
[16197]
my line of thoughts was .... hmm, I would somehow have to bind b/c 
into 'a's context, but  .... then I never know, how to use bind :-) 
Cool solutions, both from Ladislav and Steeve ....