New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

The daemon should quit automatically when all Elvish sessions are finished #419

Closed
xiaq opened this Issue Jul 9, 2017 · 0 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
1 participant
@xiaq
Member

xiaq commented Jul 9, 2017

No description provided.

@xiaq xiaq added the type:bug label Jul 9, 2017

@xiaq xiaq added this to the 0.10 milestone Jul 9, 2017

xofyarg added a commit to xofyarg/elvish that referenced this issue Jul 11, 2017

Quit daemon when no client left
Add a client connection counter in rpc server. When all the clients
quit, which means daemon is not necessary at that point, it will quit
automatically. Didn't pay much attention on concurrent cases, should
be addressed later.

fix elves#419

xofyarg added a commit to xofyarg/elvish that referenced this issue Jul 11, 2017

Quit daemon when no client left
Add a client connection counter in rpc server. When all the clients
quit, which means daemon is not necessary at that point, it will quit
automatically. Didn't pay much attention on concurrent cases, should
be addressed later.

fix elves#419

xofyarg added a commit to xofyarg/elvish that referenced this issue Jul 11, 2017

Quit daemon when no client left
Add a client connection counter in rpc server. When all the clients
quit, which means daemon is not necessary at that point, it will quit
automatically. Didn't pay much attention on concurrent cases, should
be addressed later.

fix elves#419

@xiaq xiaq closed this in #429 Jul 11, 2017

xiaq added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 11, 2017

Quit daemon when no client left (#429)
Add a client connection counter in rpc server. When all the clients
quit, which means daemon is not necessary at that point, it will quit
automatically. Didn't pay much attention on concurrent cases, should
be addressed later.

fix #419
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment