-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
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
Can support PID? #3
Comments
While it is possible, utilizing Process IDs (PIDs) might introduce complications due to their dynamic nature. Consequently, the average user could face challenges in determining these PIDs, thus potentially limiting the approach's effectiveness. |
@wiresock |
@23233 I understand your requirement to modify the
|
Perhaps I was heading in the wrong direction with my previous questions. Please accept my apologies, as I spent several hours examining the repository source code without making any progress, which led me to seek your assistance. Currently, we have implemented the following behaviors based on PID:
With this approach, we don't need to worry about the PID changing when an instance is opened, closed, and reopened. Instead, we allocate proxies to multiple instances based on the allocation rule, rather than specifying a specific existing PID. Our daily routine involves maintaining the availability of the proxy pool and managing the allocation rule. Thank you. |
Thank you for your detailed explanation regarding your current implementation. I appreciate your diligence in examining the repository source code, and it is absolutely fine that you reached out for assistance. That's what I'm here for! I understand your approach to pre-loading SOCKS5 proxies, establishing allocation rules, and then parsing the number of instances based on a specified process name for proxy distribution. This indeed seems like a comprehensive strategy to deal with instances being opened, closed, and reopened, and does negate the need to focus on a specific PID. However, there is a potential issue that you might face with this method: If your application shares state between instances, you could encounter complications or misbehave. It seems like you have already implemented the behaviors you described. Therefore, I'm curious as to what assistance you're seeking. Are there any specific problems or challenges you've encountered in your current implementation? Are there aspects you want to improve? Your answers will help me better understand your needs and provide more targeted assistance. |
Bro, you're amazing. I didn't expect you to go even further. I wonder if you can support not only passing names but also pids? Thank you so much, sincerely!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: