How do I: Main thread spawn child threads, which child processes...control those child processes?

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Jeff Rodriguez, Dec 5, 2003.

  1. Here's what I want do:

    Have a main daemon which starts up several threads in a Boss-Queue structure.

    From those threads, I want them all to sit and watch a queue. Once an entry
    goes into the queue, grab it and run a system command.

    Now I want to make sure that system command doesn't hang forever, so I need some
    way to kill the command and have the worker thread go back to work waiting for
    another queue entry.

    Now the reason for the crossposting is because it could be done without threads.
    I'm trying to figure out how to go about it, a non-blocking open() somehow? I
    just now thought of popen(), but how to do so in a non-blocking way?

    Any thoughts?

    Jeff
     
    Jeff Rodriguez, Dec 5, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jeff Rodriguez

    Jack Klein Guest

    Re: How do I: Main thread spawn child threads, which child processes... control those child processes?

    On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:32:41 -0700, Jeff Rodriguez
    <> wrote in comp.lang.c:

    In the future please leave comp.lang.c out of your cross-post list
    when asking platform specific questions, they are off-topic h ere.

    > Here's what I want do:
    >
    > Have a main daemon which starts up several threads in a Boss-Queue structure.


    There are no daemons or threads in the C language.

    --
    Jack Klein
    Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
    FAQs for
    comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
    comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c -faq-lite/
    alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ ftp://snurse-l.org/pub/acllc-c /faq
     
    Jack Klein, Dec 5, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Here is a real rough example on how to use popen(). I use this
    technique quite often.

    {
    FILE *running;

    running = popen("ls -l","r");

    if (running)
    {
    fd_set rFds = {0};
    int nFds = -1;

    FD_SET(fileno(running),&rFds);
    nFds = select(1+fileno(running),&rFds,0,0,0);
    switch(nFds)
    {
    /* decode what happended here */
    }
    }
    }

    I'd recommend you use poll() for waiting (select() is easier for the
    example). Then you can wait as long as you wish, and closing running
    should signal a broken pipe to the process, thus terminating it.

    I don't know if you need bi directional interaction with the other
    process, but the theory will still be the same, you just need to handle
    the "other" handle before the popen() call

    Jeff Rodriguez wrote:
    > Here's what I want do:
    >
    > Have a main daemon which starts up several threads in a Boss-Queue
    > structure.
    >
    > From those threads, I want them all to sit and watch a queue. Once an
    > entry goes into the queue, grab it and run a system command.
    >
    > Now I want to make sure that system command doesn't hang forever, so I
    > need some way to kill the command and have the worker thread go back to
    > work waiting for another queue entry.
    >
    > Now the reason for the crossposting is because it could be done without
    > threads. I'm trying to figure out how to go about it, a non-blocking
    > open() somehow? I just now thought of popen(), but how to do so in a
    > non-blocking way?
    >
    > Any thoughts?
    >
    > Jeff
    >
     
    Joseph Dionne, Dec 5, 2003
    #3
  4. Jeff Rodriguez

    CBFalconer Guest

    Re: How do I: Main thread spawn child threads, which childprocesses...control those child processes?

    *** Rude top-posting fixed. Follow-ups set. ***

    Joseph Dionne wrote:
    > Jeff Rodriguez wrote:
    > >
    > > Have a main daemon which starts up several threads in a Boss-Queue
    > > structure.
    > >
    > > From those threads, I want them all to sit and watch a queue. Once
    > > an entry goes into the queue, grab it and run a system command.
    > >
    > > Now I want to make sure that system command doesn't hang forever,
    > > so I need some way to kill the command and have the worker thread
    > > go back to work waiting for another queue entry.
    > >
    > > Now the reason for the crossposting is because it could be done
    > > without threads. I'm trying to figure out how to go about it, a
    > > non-blocking open() somehow? I just now thought of popen(), but
    > > how to do so in a non-blocking way?

    >
    > Here is a real rough example on how to use popen(). I use this
    > technique quite often.
    >
    > {
    > FILE *running;
    >
    > running = popen("ls -l","r");
    >
    > if (running)
    > {
    > fd_set rFds = {0};
    > int nFds = -1;
    >
    > FD_SET(fileno(running),&rFds);
    > nFds = select(1+fileno(running),&rFds,0,0,0);
    > switch(nFds)
    > {
    > /* decode what happended here */
    > }
    > }
    > }
    >
    > I'd recommend you use poll() for waiting (select() is easier for
    > the example). Then you can wait as long as you wish, and closing
    > running should signal a broken pipe to the process, thus
    > terminating it.
    >
    > I don't know if you need bi directional interaction with the other
    > process, but the theory will still be the same, you just need to
    > handle the "other" handle before the popen() call


    This thread is entirely off topic for c.l.c, inasmuch as the C
    language knows zip about threads. C.l.c. also does not condone
    top-posting.

    --
    Chuck F () ()
    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
     
    CBFalconer, Dec 5, 2003
    #4
  5. Jeff Rodriguez

    Bjorn Reese Guest

    Re: How do I: Main thread spawn child threads, which child processes...control those child processes?

    [ comp.lang.c added back in ]

    On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:43:53 +0000, CBFalconer wrote:

    > This thread is entirely off topic for c.l.c, inasmuch as the C
    > language knows zip about threads. C.l.c. also does not condone
    > top-posting.


    As a reader of comp.unix.programmer, where the thread is
    relevant, may I humbly ask you lot on comp.lang.c to practice
    what you preach by not cross-posting your replies about the
    charter of comp.lang.c, which is off-topic on the other groups?

    Thank you.

    --
    mail1dotstofanetdotdk
     
    Bjorn Reese, Dec 5, 2003
    #5
  6. [OT] Polite cross-posting (was: How do I: Main thread spawn childthreads..._

    Bjorn Reese wrote:
    > [ comp.lang.c added back in ]
    >
    > On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:43:53 +0000, CBFalconer wrote:
    >
    >
    >>This thread is entirely off topic for c.l.c, inasmuch as the C
    >>language knows zip about threads. C.l.c. also does not condone
    >>top-posting.

    >
    >
    > As a reader of comp.unix.programmer, where the thread is
    > relevant, may I humbly ask you lot on comp.lang.c to practice
    > what you preach by not cross-posting your replies about the
    > charter of comp.lang.c, which is off-topic on the other groups?
    >


    Sorry, no. That's not a reasonable request. It does no good for us to
    tell others in comp.lang.c that a message is off-topic here while people
    in other groups merrily cross post more and more off-topic replies to
    our group. When somebody cross-posts an off-topic message, we have to
    ask the other groups to remove us from the cross-post list when
    replying. I expect people in any other group to do the same, and
    certainly wouldn't complain if a member of some other group replied to a
    cross post in c.l.c to tell us that the thread is not topical in their
    group. In fact, it's nice to know, since it removes all doubt about
    whether a reply should be cross-posted back to that group or not.

    We in comp.lang.c do our best to be good neighbors. We're sorry for the
    noise, but blame the original cross-poster, not us.

    Disclaimer: I don't speak for the whole group. Any or all of the other
    members of c.l.c may disagree with me.

    -Kevin
    --
    My email address is valid, but changes periodically.
    To contact me please use the address from a recent posting.
     
    Kevin Goodsell, Dec 5, 2003
    #6
  7. Re: [OT] Polite cross-posting (was: How do I: Main thread spawn child threads..._

    In article <4b5Ab.352$>,
    Kevin Goodsell <> wrote:

    > We in comp.lang.c do our best to be good neighbors. We're sorry for the
    > noise, but blame the original cross-poster, not us.


    No you don't, and I don't think you're sorry. I've never seen any other
    group be so routinely hostile to innocent newbies who don't know any
    better. Their thinking was probably something like "I'm programming on
    Unix in C, so I'll ask in the Unix and C groups." Is that *so*
    unreasonable that they need to be made to feel like idiots?

    You can clearly see that the message is cross-posted to a Unix group.
    Then when it makes mention of a Unix function (which you probably knew
    was going to happen) you typically give some kind of sarcastic response,
    embarassing them as if they're the first one to ever have made this
    mistake.

    We occasionally get questions in comp.unix.programmer that are about
    straight C, with nothing Unix-specific. I've rarely seen anyone here
    respond "Sorry, that's not a Unix question, go ask in comp.lang.c." We
    answer them, and then perhaps mention your fine newsgroup (as well as
    some related alt.learn groups, if it seems appropriate) for future
    questions of the same type.

    You guys are like a grumpy neighbor. Kids don't want their ball to get
    thrown into his yard by accident, because he won't give it back without
    a fight.

    --
    Barry Margolin,
    Woburn, MA
     
    Barry Margolin, Dec 6, 2003
    #7
  8. Re: [OT] Polite cross-posting (was: How do I: Main thread spawn child threads..._

    On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 10:05:08 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Barry Margolin
    <> wrote:

    >In article <4b5Ab.352$>,
    > Kevin Goodsell <> wrote:
    >
    >> We in comp.lang.c do our best to be good neighbors. We're sorry for the
    >> noise, but blame the original cross-poster, not us.

    >
    >No you don't, and I don't think you're sorry.


    You misjudge Kevin in specific, and CLC in general.

    >I've never seen any other
    >group be so routinely hostile to innocent newbies who don't know any
    >better.


    There are for sure some people here who're overagressive. Its
    certainly far from the most hostile group tho.

    >Their thinking was probably something like "I'm programming on
    >Unix in C, so I'll ask in the Unix and C groups." Is that *so*
    >unreasonable that they need to be made to feel like idiots?


    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they shall say "newbies ought to
    follow nettiquette and lurk before posting, and yet by definition
    newbies may not know that"

    >We occasionally get questions in comp.unix.programmer that are about
    >straight C, with nothing Unix-specific. I've rarely seen anyone here
    >respond "Sorry, that's not a Unix question, go ask in comp.lang.c." We
    >answer them,


    Probably because any straight C question is by definition entirely
    within the scope of unix programming?


    --
    Mark McIntyre
    CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>


    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
     
    Mark McIntyre, Dec 6, 2003
    #8
  9. Jeff Rodriguez

    Bjorn Reese Guest

    Re: [OT] Polite cross-posting (was: How do I: Main thread spawn child threads..._

    On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:40:48 +0000, Kevin Goodsell wrote:

    > our group. When somebody cross-posts an off-topic message, we have to
    > ask the other groups to remove us from the cross-post list when
    > replying. I expect people in any other group to do the same, and
    > certainly wouldn't complain if a member of some other group replied to a
    > cross post in c.l.c to tell us that the thread is not topical in their


    All other groups that I am subscribed to uses a different tactic
    to handle off-topic postings; they ignore them. Only comp.lang.c
    feels compelled to teach everybody about their charter.

    As long as comp.lang.c uses their tactic within their own group
    I am not going to object, but I have a problem when they
    cross-post to other groups, and set the follow-up to all groups
    except their own group. Discussions about the charter of
    comp.lang.c are topical on comp.lang.c and only there, so the
    follow-up should be set to comp.lang.c and not any other group.

    > We in comp.lang.c do our best to be good neighbors. We're sorry for the
    > noise, but blame the original cross-poster, not us.


    The original poster will be educated about the comp.lang.c charter
    by the replies that are sent exclusively to comp.lang.c.

    Should any replies omit to remove comp.lang.c from the cross-
    posting then I am sorry about the noise, but at least you have
    the posibility to killfile the thread -- we don't because the
    thread, apart from the postings about what is topical on
    comp.lang.c, is topical on our groups.

    I do not perceive the comp.lang.c charter cross-posting, nor your
    refusal to respect the charters of other groups, as good
    neighborship.

    Please respect the fact that discussions about what is and is not
    topical on comp.lang.c are not topical on other groups.

    Thank you.

    --
    mail1dotstofanetdotdk
     
    Bjorn Reese, Dec 6, 2003
    #9
  10. Re: [OT] Polite cross-posting (was: How do I: Main thread spawn child threads..._

    On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 17:02:08 +0100, in comp.lang.c , "Bjorn Reese"
    <> wrote:

    >All other groups that I am subscribed to uses a different tactic
    >to handle off-topic postings; they ignore them. Only comp.lang.c
    >feels compelled to teach everybody about their charter.


    actually, we don't have one - the group predates the charter system.

    >As long as comp.lang.c uses their tactic within their own group
    >I am not going to object, but I have a problem when they
    >cross-post to other groups, and set the follow-up to all groups
    >except their own group. Discussions about the charter of
    >comp.lang.c are topical on comp.lang.c and only there, so the
    >follow-up should be set to comp.lang.c and not any other group.


    agreed.

    >> We in comp.lang.c do our best to be good neighbors. We're sorry for the
    >> noise, but blame the original cross-poster, not us.

    >
    >The original poster will be educated about the comp.lang.c charter
    >by the replies that are sent exclusively to comp.lang.c.


    only if he reads it.
    --
    Mark McIntyre
    CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>


    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
     
    Mark McIntyre, Dec 6, 2003
    #10
  11. Re: [OT] Polite cross-posting (was: How do I: Main thread spawn child threads..._

    On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bjorn Reese wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:40:48 +0000, Kevin Goodsell wrote:
    > > our group. When somebody cross-posts an off-topic message, we have to
    > > ask the other groups to remove us from the cross-post list when
    > > replying. I expect people in any other group to do the same, and
    > > certainly wouldn't complain if a member of some other group replied to a
    > > cross post in c.l.c to tell us that the thread is not topical in their

    >
    > All other groups that I am subscribed to uses a different tactic
    > to handle off-topic postings; they ignore them. Only comp.lang.c
    > feels compelled to teach everybody about their charter.


    No charter for c.l.c -- it's been around longer than the charter
    system, apparently. We do have a FAQ or two, though.

    > As long as comp.lang.c uses their tactic within their own group
    > I am not going to object, but I have a problem when they
    > cross-post to other groups, and set the follow-up to all groups
    > except their own group.


    The rationale for that is: This is off-topic on c.l.c, but not
    c.u.p.
    Suppose I (in c.l.c) do nothing. Then c.l.c is flooded with
    off-topic posts cross-posted from c.u.p. That's bad.
    Suppose I (in c.l.c) post a message to c.l.c only, telling the
    OP it's off-topic. That might educate the OP, but probably not --
    he doesn't read c.l.c. (If he did, he wouldn't post OT questions
    here. QED.) And since nobody in c.u.p will see the message, it
    won't stop the flood of OT posts either.
    Suppose I (in c.l.c) post a message to c.u.p only, telling the
    OP it's off-topic. That has a higher chance of educating the OP,
    but it would be uncouth -- because without any post in c.l.c, the
    members won't see that the OP has been re-directed, and *c.u.p*
    will be flooded by c.l.c redirection messages!
    Suppose I (in c.l.c) post a message to c.u.p and c.l.c both,
    telling the OP it's off-topic. That will probably educate the
    OP (since he must be reading *some* group), and if all goes well
    it will be noticed by the folks in c.u.p too, and they will stop
    posting OT stuff to c.l.c.
    Setting the followups to exclude c.l.c keeps the OT (sub-)thread
    from reappearing in the newsgroup in which it is OT. Unfortunately,
    it *is* counter-productive, in that it tends to piss off people
    in other groups, who then flood c.l.c with threads like this
    one, complaining about how the followup list was pared.

    > Discussions about the charter of
    > comp.lang.c are topical on comp.lang.c and only there, so the
    > follow-up should be set to comp.lang.c and not any other group.


    Reasonable. The central problem, the Catch-22, is that we
    can't get rid of an annoying thread without re-directing the poster,
    and we can't re-direct the poster without risking the start of
    another annoying sub-thread like this one.
    If only everyone would read the FAQs and some general guides
    to Usenet etiquette, we would hardly ever have this problem. I
    tend to agree with you -- c.l.c *is* a grumpy old man into whose
    yard it is unwise to hit baseballs. But it's only gotten that way
    because *every week* a new kid moves into the house next door and
    the *first* thing he does is hit a baseball through our window.
    *Every week.* It produces a bit of institutionalized grumpiness
    after a while.
    FWIW, many of the newbies who post *only* to c.l.c get redirected
    in a more friendly manner. That may be due partly to the fact that
    we know that after they get redirected, the thread will *die*, and
    not be kept alive by some idjits in a whole 'nother group who have
    never been told to snip c.l.c from followups. <half-smiley>


    > The original poster will be educated about the comp.lang.c charter
    > by the replies that are sent exclusively to comp.lang.c.


    No, he obviously *won't*. He doesn't *read* c.l.c -- if he ever
    had, he'd have seen the kinds of questions that are topical here.
    And if he ever *planned* to read c.l.c, he'd have Googled the FAQ
    himself. Thus we can only conclude that he must be reading from
    your side of the fence. Sorry.

    > Should any replies omit to remove comp.lang.c from the cross-
    > posting then I am sorry about the noise, but at least you have
    > the posibility to killfile the thread -- we don't because the
    > thread, apart from the postings about what is topical on
    > comp.lang.c, is topical on our groups.


    Yes, I'm sorry about that too. Catch-23: If we added a
    [TOPICALITY] tag to the thread, then c.u.p could killfile it.
    But if we change the subject line, then Google Groups will
    spawn a new thread and the OP might not see the sub-thread at
    all -- and thus he'd keep doing it. :-(

    > I do not perceive the comp.lang.c charter cross-posting, nor your
    > refusal to respect the charters of other groups, as good
    > neighborship.
    >
    > Please respect the fact that discussions about what is and is not
    > topical on comp.lang.c are not topical on other groups.


    I highly doubt that the original topicality-policeman *intended*
    to start a "discussion." We just want the things that are off-topic
    on *our* group to stay *out*. Discussion is not necessary. (Catch-
    24: I can't impart my information to you unless I join the
    discussion. And the information I want to impart is that discussion
    is counter-productive.)

    Now please everyone let this thread die. And next time you see
    an off-topic thread in c.u.p (or anywhere), just re-direct the OP
    and then shut up. And remember, in your redirection, to tell the
    OP to shut up too, lest we start another of *these*. :)

    -Arthur
     
    Arthur J. O'Dwyer, Dec 6, 2003
    #11
  12. Re: [OT] Polite cross-posting

    Barry Margolin wrote:

    > In article <4b5Ab.352$>,
    > Kevin Goodsell <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>We in comp.lang.c do our best to be good neighbors. We're sorry for the
    >>noise, but blame the original cross-poster, not us.

    >
    >
    > No you don't, and I don't think you're sorry. I've never seen any other
    > group be so routinely hostile to innocent newbies who don't know any
    > better. Their thinking was probably something like "I'm programming on
    > Unix in C, so I'll ask in the Unix and C groups." Is that *so*
    > unreasonable that they need to be made to feel like idiots?


    First, groups aren't hostile. (Some) people are.

    Second, if the "newbies" observed some basic netiquette rules then there
    wouldn't be a problem. c.l.c provides countless man-hours of free
    support, and asks nothing in return. All that we ask is that people
    follow the basic rules of Usenet. When they don't, some people become
    hostile.

    >
    > You can clearly see that the message is cross-posted to a Unix group.
    > Then when it makes mention of a Unix function (which you probably knew
    > was going to happen) you typically give some kind of sarcastic response,
    > embarassing them as if they're the first one to ever have made this
    > mistake.


    Yes, I can clearly see the cross-post list. But it's also easy to miss.
    I assume that most of the time when a response like that is
    cross-posted, it's because the person didn't realize that the original
    message (or their reply) was being cross-posted. Personally, I usually
    post a polite reply addressing the other groups and asking them to
    remove comp.lang.c from the cross-post list when replying.

    >
    > We occasionally get questions in comp.unix.programmer that are about
    > straight C, with nothing Unix-specific. I've rarely seen anyone here
    > respond "Sorry, that's not a Unix question, go ask in comp.lang.c." We
    > answer them, and then perhaps mention your fine newsgroup (as well as
    > some related alt.learn groups, if it seems appropriate) for future
    > questions of the same type.


    That sounds quite appropriate. Straight C questions can usually be
    addressed better in comp.lang.c, so a redirection is good for everyone.
    But you should realize that it's not quite the same thing as a Unix
    question in comp.lang.c. Many people here don't program for Unix at all,
    and we are generally not well-equipped to answer those questions. This
    is, of course, the reason we have different groups with different topics
    - so that a question can reach those who can best answer it, while not
    wasting the time of those who not only cannot answer it, but have no
    interest in it.

    >
    > You guys are like a grumpy neighbor. Kids don't want their ball to get
    > thrown into his yard by accident, because he won't give it back without
    > a fight.
    >


    This depends very much on the kid. We don't like rude children (who
    does?), but we're quite fond of the ones that are respectful and
    interested in learning from us.

    I actually really like that analogy. It seems very appropriate. That is,
    if you consider that the neighbor is grumpy because he's had to deal
    with so many rude kids, but he can be quite pleasant as long as you
    don't get on his bad side.

    -Kevin
    --
    My email address is valid, but changes periodically.
    To contact me please use the address from a recent posting.
     
    Kevin Goodsell, Dec 6, 2003
    #12
  13. Re: [OT] Polite cross-posting

    Bjorn Reese wrote:

    > On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:40:48 +0000, Kevin Goodsell wrote:
    >
    >
    >>our group. When somebody cross-posts an off-topic message, we have to
    >>ask the other groups to remove us from the cross-post list when
    >>replying. I expect people in any other group to do the same, and
    >>certainly wouldn't complain if a member of some other group replied to a
    >>cross post in c.l.c to tell us that the thread is not topical in their

    >
    >
    > All other groups that I am subscribed to uses a different tactic
    > to handle off-topic postings; they ignore them. Only comp.lang.c
    > feels compelled to teach everybody about their charter.


    In my experience, people lacking the netiquette skills to post
    appropriately also tend to re-post over and over. But more important
    than that is the fact that comp.lang.c gets a great number of off-topic
    posts. We *have* to actively discourage off-topic posting just to
    maintain a reasonable signal-to-noise ratio, and keep the overall
    quantity of posts manageable.

    If by "everybody" you are referring to the people in other groups, then
    I agree. A "that's off-topic here" message isn't appropriate as a
    cross-post (and I think it usually only happens by accident). What I was
    trying to say is that a message saying "please remove us from the
    cross-post list when replying" is appropriate, and to some degree necessary.

    >
    > As long as comp.lang.c uses their tactic within their own group
    > I am not going to object, but I have a problem when they
    > cross-post to other groups, and set the follow-up to all groups
    > except their own group. Discussions about the charter of
    > comp.lang.c are topical on comp.lang.c and only there, so the
    > follow-up should be set to comp.lang.c and not any other group.


    I don't think it's expected that discussion will continue to center on
    c.l.c's charter[*]. I assume the expectation is that the topic of
    discussion will be that of the original post, which does not belong in
    c.l.c. As for whether it belongs in the other groups - well, we're not
    always able to tell.

    That said, I *don't* use the method you are objecting to. I generally
    set no follow-ups at all. I figure no one will reply anyway (directly to
    my request, that is - and in my experience, this is almost always the
    case), so I've never really thought about it. But I also don't think
    your suggested alternative is completely appropriate. Actually, I don't
    really recognize this as a problem at all, because people usually don't
    reply to those messages. All I can say is that I'll keep in mind that
    setting the follow-ups for all the other groups may annoy people, and
    (continue to) not do it.

    [*]Technically, c.l.c has no charter - it predates Usenet charters. But
    it does have a specific topic.

    >
    >
    >>We in comp.lang.c do our best to be good neighbors. We're sorry for the
    >>noise, but blame the original cross-poster, not us.

    >
    >
    > The original poster will be educated about the comp.lang.c charter
    > by the replies that are sent exclusively to comp.lang.c.


    Do you really think that inappropriate cross-posters read all the groups
    they cross-post to?

    >
    > Should any replies omit to remove comp.lang.c from the cross-
    > posting then I am sorry about the noise, but at least you have
    > the posibility to killfile the thread -- we don't because the
    > thread, apart from the postings about what is topical on
    > comp.lang.c, is topical on our groups.
    >
    > I do not perceive the comp.lang.c charter cross-posting, nor your
    > refusal to respect the charters of other groups, as good
    > neighborship.
    >
    > Please respect the fact that discussions about what is and is not
    > topical on comp.lang.c are not topical on other groups.


    It's certainly not my intent to disrespect any other group's charter,
    nor do I believe that that's the intent of the others on comp.lang.c.

    I would like 2 things clarified: first, I would like to clarify that
    what I am advocating is simply a short, polite message saying something like

    This message is not topical in <insert group here>. Please
    remove it from the cross-post list when replying. Thank you.

    Second, I would like it clarified for me whether this is actually what
    others are objecting to. It seems quite reasonable to me, but if it's a
    problem for a significant number of people then I will stop doing it and
    stop advocating it.

    -Kevin
    --
    My email address is valid, but changes periodically.
    To contact me please use the address from a recent posting.
     
    Kevin Goodsell, Dec 6, 2003
    #13
  14. Re: [OT] Polite cross-posting

    In article <z%rAb.2656$>,
    Kevin Goodsell <> wrote:

    > [*]Technically, c.l.c has no charter - it predates Usenet charters. But
    > it does have a specific topic.


    You don't have a written charter, but you obviously have a de facto
    charter, or otherwise it wouldn't be so clear to you what's on-topic and
    off-topic. Unfortunately, that limited topic is hardly clear from the
    name of the group; it's not as if it were "comp.lang.c.portable-only".
    So the frequent confusion should be understood.

    I used to flame back at the real estate postings in misc.int-property
    (they think the name stands for international property rather than
    intellectual property). I've given up -- they're spammers and don't
    care anyway. Occasionally someone suggests the group be renamed to
    avoid the confusion, but it's not a big enough problem to get anyone to
    spearhead the effort. If the noise level in comp.lang.c is so high that
    you need to be antagonistic, perhaps you should consider something like
    this.

    --
    Barry Margolin,
    Woburn, MA
     
    Barry Margolin, Dec 7, 2003
    #14
  15. Re: [OT] Polite cross-posting

    In article <z%rAb.2656$>,
    Kevin Goodsell <> wrote:

    > I would like 2 things clarified: first, I would like to clarify that
    > what I am advocating is simply a short, polite message saying something like
    >
    > This message is not topical in <insert group here>. Please
    > remove it from the cross-post list when replying. Thank you.


    Requests like this are very difficult to follow. Many posters will
    reply before ever seeing it (either because they don't read the entire
    thread before replying, or because that message hasn't gotten to their
    site yet). And you have to remember that a particular thread needs to
    be treated specially over the course of several days, and check each
    time you follow up to see if the newsgroups have to be filtered.

    --
    Barry Margolin,
    Woburn, MA
     
    Barry Margolin, Dec 7, 2003
    #15
  16. Re: [OT] Polite cross-posting

    On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:00:44 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Barry Margolin
    <> wrote:

    (in a long and otherwise dull thread, on the sobject of having flamed
    some newby who posted offtopic and didn't read the FAQ or welcome
    message)

    (ref the nonexistent charter)
    We've done this before, ad nauseam. You don't like the rules? Stop
    reading posts from clc. You don't like how we respond to offtopic
    posts? This is usenet, grow a thicker skin.

    (ref renaming the group)
    We're happy with it like it is. If you don't like it, killfile
    crossposts from clc. The solution is in your hands.
    --
    Mark McIntyre
    CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>


    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
     
    Mark McIntyre, Dec 7, 2003
    #16
  17. Re: [OT] Polite cross-posting

    Barry Margolin wrote:

    (snip regarding newsgroup charters)

    > I used to flame back at the real estate postings in misc.int-property
    > (they think the name stands for international property rather than
    > intellectual property). I've given up -- they're spammers and don't
    > care anyway. Occasionally someone suggests the group be renamed to
    > avoid the confusion, but it's not a big enough problem to get anyone to
    > spearhead the effort. If the noise level in comp.lang.c is so high that
    > you need to be antagonistic, perhaps you should consider something like
    > this.



    It is funny what some groups end up with. comp.sys.powerpc was fine,
    until the Power macintosh came out and people would post questions
    unrelated to the processor there, just because of the processor.
    The fix was to move everything to comp.sys.powerpc.tech, and leave
    comp.sys.powerpc alone.

    comp.arch also tends to get strange posts, though very rarely posts
    about computerized building design.

    Oh well.

    -- glen
     
    glen herrmannsfeldt, Dec 8, 2003
    #17
  18. Jeff Rodriguez

    Alan Balmer Guest

    Re: [OT] Polite cross-posting (was: How do I: Main thread spawn child threads..._

    On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 10:05:08 GMT, Barry Margolin <>
    wrote:

    >We occasionally get questions in comp.unix.programmer that are about
    >straight C, with nothing Unix-specific. I've rarely seen anyone here
    >respond "Sorry, that's not a Unix question, go ask in comp.lang.c." We


    That's fine. Go for it, but I think if you reflect on it, you'll see
    that the situations are not the same.

    Also, please consider that c.l.c has around three time the traffic as
    does c.u.p. If we routinely answered off-topic posts, things would
    quickly get out of hand.

    --
    Al Balmer
    Balmer Consulting
     
    Alan Balmer, Dec 8, 2003
    #18
  19. Jeff Rodriguez

    Alan Balmer Guest

    Re: [OT] Polite cross-posting (was: How do I: Main thread spawn child threads..._

    On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 17:02:08 +0100, "Bjorn Reese"
    <> wrote:

    >Discussions about the charter of
    >comp.lang.c are topical on comp.lang.c and only there, so the
    >follow-up should be set to comp.lang.c and not any other group.


    No. There is no assurance that the offending cross-poster will even
    read the reply if it's posted only to c.l.c.

    --
    Al Balmer
    Balmer Consulting
     
    Alan Balmer, Dec 8, 2003
    #19
  20. Jeff Rodriguez

    CBFalconer Guest

    Re: [OT] Polite cross-posting (was: How do I: Main thread spawn childthreads..._

    Alan Balmer wrote:
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >Discussions about the charter of
    > >comp.lang.c are topical on comp.lang.c and only there, so the
    > >follow-up should be set to comp.lang.c and not any other group.

    >
    > No. There is no assurance that the offending cross-poster will
    > even read the reply if it's posted only to c.l.c.


    Which, in turn, is why such a reply should set follow-ups.

    --
    Chuck F () ()
    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
     
    CBFalconer, Dec 8, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. BinnuChowdary
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    542
    Swanand Mokashi
    May 1, 2006
  2. BinnuChowdary
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    418
    BinnuChowdary
    May 2, 2006
  3. Derek Basch
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,306
    Donn Cave
    Jan 21, 2005
  4. Ed Hames
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    378
    Ed Hames
    Apr 16, 2008
  5. Edgardo Hames
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    351
    Ed Hames
    May 6, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page