bryan at conserver
Nov 3, 2010, 2:43 PM
Post #6 of 11
I've been looking at the patch, and I do want to integrate it in. It's going to take a little work, however. The current implementation can block the conserver process if the exec'ed script fails to behave nicely (and no matter the whole process will stop, waiting for it to complete). That really needs to be adjusted so it won't block...and can still service other consoles intermixed with the one running the command. And an ability to stop it, in case it does go bad.
And I'm all for making it more generic as well...perhaps by making the 'k' command programmable - in the sense that you can associate a command with any character ([a-z0-9]) after 'k' and give it a label so you know what the command is supposed to do.
So, 'k' for 'k'ommand...or perhaps even '!' to invoke a command? Harder to type, but consistent with vi, for example.
Any feedback appreciated...
On Nov 2, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Anton Lundin wrote:
> On 02 November, 2010 - Bill Peck wrote:
>> On 11/02/2010 05:29 AM, Fabien Wernli wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 03:44:00PM +0200, Anton Lundin wrote:
>>>> About 1-2 years ago I fond a nice looking patch for power control via
>>>> conserver on this maillist.
>>> Interesting patch. IMHO, it would be more useful to allow for generic commands.
>>> Your need may be power control. Someone else's may be e.g. "output event
>>> log" etc.
>> It does allow for generic commands. Maybe the labelling of the options
>> should come from the config file? If you really want this then how
>> about a patch? ;-)
> Its a trivial rewrite of the patch to call them something else, so if
> that would get the code upstream I could do it.
> Anton Lundin +46702-161604
> users mailing list
> users [at] conserver
users mailing list
users [at] conserver