Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing

[Greg Banks <gnb@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

nathans@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> ----- "Greg Banks" <gnb@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>   
> > Sure we could do it in pmproxy, but I don't see what it buys us other
> > than not having to start one more daemon in the init script?
> >     
> From someone who is administering a number of sites (ie. me) that would
> want to use both, it's a big win.  One less open port to register & worry
> about,
Oh, you want to run both protocols on the same port?  Wow, I was 
thinking a separate port, e.g. port 80 or 8000, for the new one.  So we 
don't have to futz around detecting which protocol is being used, and so 
that they can be firewalled separately.
>  get to share all the code for dealing with multiplexing requests
> already ... *shrug* ... why not?  Seems like a no-brainer choice - just
> inject new code at pmproxy.c line 320 and 350 for web clients.
>
>   
That main loop is the easiest 5% of the code involved :)

--
Greg.