This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Syslog (was: <no subject>)
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 06:14:10AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> If you are going to emulate *n*x, you are going have to run some
> processes. Memory is cheap, and certainly the syslogd wouldn't use that
> much, would it? Also, it's not like you couldn't have the messages fall
> back to the NTeventlog or Ugly-syslog, should the service not be started
> or fail. I bet it would even be possible to have syslogd pass messages to
> the NT Event Log, as well. Anyhow, the concept of running a full blown
> installation of cygwin w/o any additional processes will be moot once
> cygserver becomes mainstream. IMHO, the NT Event Log is not very
> extensible and, of course, is proprietary. Just my 2 cents...
Memory is obviously not a problem but:
- The base tools needed to build programs (gcc/as/ld/etc) always
will have to run w/o starting some service.
- Even if cygserver is becoming mainstream, Cygwin will still
have to run nicely w/o cygserver. No base functionality
(e. g. fork()) may require cygserver.
- The openlog/syslog calls in the kernel should work even if
no syslogd is running. This will become somewhat tricky
if each call has to check the existance of a running syslogd
to be able to fallback to event log if it's not running (The
connection is..., well, connectionless. Syslog is using UDP).
Ok, that's easy to solve...
The solution if we going to utilize syslogd has to fulfill
these requirements. Basically Cygwin is still only an emulation
layer to allow building and running POSIX applications, not
a full substitute for an OS (even if we're not *that* far away ;-)).
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/