ability to restart app process about katon HOT 5 CLOSED

Yes, good idea. I've added katon touch in v0.6.4.

from katon.

What does it touch?

from katon.

touch ~/.katon/hosts/<app_name>.json
katon is monitoring these files and reloads server configuration. It should be noted though that the server is stopped and you need to make a request to get it started (same behavior as katon rm && katon add ...)

from katon.

I see. In that case I would suggest picking a more appropriate name for this command, such as "restart" or "kill".

There are two common touch abstractions:

• The server is watching a file (e.g. restart.txt), the developer touches that file to restart the server
• The developer's own code is watching files for changes (typically reload server), something else is expected to touch one of these files

Both are "touch" abstraction because you're expected to either touch a file, or write code that responses to a file that's touched. In both cases "touch" describes what it does.

In Katon's case, however, "touch" doesn't describe what it does, but how it does it. And that's why I think the name is inadequate. I care to know what the command does. Whether it uses file touching, or signals, or sockets, those are just implementation details.

You can tell when it's the right abstraction if the command name remains the same (e.g. katon kill) even as the implementation changes from using one mechanism to another (e.g. from touch to signal).

As for what would be a better name, if I understand it correctly, this command effectively kills the server, so that would be the most appropriate name.

from katon.

👍 assaf

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Assaf Arkin [email protected]
wrote:

I see. In that case I would suggest picking a more appropriate name for
this command, such as "restart" or "kill".

There are two common touch abstractions:

• The server is watching a file (e.g. restart.txt), the developer
  touches that file to restart the server
• The developer's own code is watching files for changes (typically
  reload server), something else is expected to touch one of these files

Both are "touch" abstraction because you're expected to either touch a
file, or write code that responses to a file that's touched. In both cases
"touch" describes what it does.

In Katon's case, however, "touch" doesn't describe what it does, but how
it does it. And that's why I think the name is inadequate. I care to know
what the command does. Whether it uses file touching, or signals, or
sockets, those are just implementation details.

You can tell when it's the right abstraction if the command name remains
the same (e.g. katon kill) even as the implementation changes from using
one mechanism to another (e.g. from touch to signal).

As for what would be a better name, if I understand it correctly, this
command effectively kills the server, so that would be the most appropriate
name.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#39 (comment).

Adam Becker
510.928.9111
@AdamJacobBecker

from katon.