Re: [boost] Subject: Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Process library starts tomorrow

Subject: Re: [boost] Subject: Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Process library starts tomorrow
From: Oliver Kowalke (k-oli_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-11 15:41:03

Am 11.02.2011 21:10, schrieb Jeremy Maitin-Shepard:
> On 02/11/2011 03:14 AM, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> I'd like to see the possibility to send signals to the child process too.
>>
>> posix_child pchild( child);
>> pchild.signal_sigstop();
>> pchild.signal_sigcontinue();
>> etc.
>
> Sending signals to the child process is quite trivial: simply invoke the
> POSIX kill function with the pid of the child. You don't even have to
> worry about looping to handle EINTR. Potentially boost.process could
> provide an interface for this, but as it is specific to POSIX, and it is
> basically impossible to have a simpler interface than already provided
> by POSIX, it seems rather pointless.

The interface is simple but it is not pointless if boost.process 
implements the boost.asio signal handler.
Sending signals makes the interface of boost.process more complete.
Especially if Boris adopts its last suggestion regarding to Dmitry's 
code (https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2879).
If boost.process handles arbitrary signals delivered to the process why 
not provide an interface which allows to send those signals (even if the 
implementation is trivial)?