Shouldn't System.Process.runInteractiveCommand close inherited
descriptors above 2?
bos at serpentine.com
Mon Jun 4 16:08:11 EDT 2007
Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> Additionaly, in a complex
> application you may want a particular descriptor to be passed through
> one exec(), and not passed through another.
Well, you have all the building blocks you need to write a function that
will do just that. It shouldn't take more than a few lines of code.
> So my initial question changes to: would it be useful to have an
> extended version of runInteractiveProcess with options for using
> non-standard behaviour and things like setsid(2)? Did anyone other
> than us wanted such functionality?
If you want to manipulate sessions and stuff like that, you're deep in
application-specific territory, not to mention POSIX specificity. The
libraries already provide the basic pieces that you need; I don't see
much value in cooking some particular combination of them into a
"blessed" library function.
More information about the Libraries