[systemd-devel] Instantiated sockets?

[Ian Pilcher]

On 01/22/2013 09:07 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Nope, there isn't. We currently do not allow this because we don't
> really know what to the per-connection service instances would be called
> like. i.e. if the socket is called foo at bar.socket, and it is activated,
> do you just drop the "bar" and activate
> foo at 3-172.16.1.1-555-47.11.8.15-777.service? This would not cover
> your use case. So, the question is what to do instead. 

That's what I suspected.

If coming up with a naming convention is the biggest obstacle, that
would certainly seem to be a solvable problem.  Off the cuff, I'd say
that foo at bar@3-172.16.1.1-555-47.11.8.15-777.service ought to do the
trick.

Ideally, "bar" and "3-172.16.1.1-555-47.11.8.15-777" would be passed
separately to the .service file -- %i and &j or somesuch.  In a pinch,
however, all of it could be stuffed into the instance name, and the
service file author would just have to deal with it.  (If desired, %j
and %k could always be added later to provide the separate components.)

This is where you say "patches welcome", and I beg off because of
limited time (and lack of familiarity with the code base).  Any systemd
hackers out there looking for a project?  ;-)

Thanks!

-- 
========================================================================
Ian Pilcher                                         arequipeno at gmail.com
Sometimes there's nothing left to do but crash and burn...or die trying.
========================================================================