consequence of not using risky_shell

[Ulf Wiger (AL/EAB)]

One of the purported problems, AFAIR,
was that piping commands into a system while
it was starting up was sometimes hazardous.

This could be addressed with a function

  init:await_system_started() -> ok

which could be first in the chain of commands
being piped into the shell.

Perhaps init:await_system_started(Timeout)
could also be useful, but I'm not sure.

/Uffe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:mbj@REDACTED]
> Sent: den 14 februari 2005 15:06
> To: mfroberg@REDACTED
> Cc: Ulf Wiger (AL/EAB); erlang-questions@REDACTED
> Subject: Re: consequence of not using risky_shell
> 
> 
> Magnus Fröberg <mfroberg@REDACTED> wrote:
> > I would recommend not making this flag an undocumented feature
> > as it is really needed.
> > Actually, I think the default behaviour should be the old
> > in an interactive system at least.
> 
> I agree 100%.
> 
> > > (see 
> http://www.erlang.org/ml-archive/erlang-questions/200412/msg00
045.html and follow-ups)

I read the original thread now (not then :( )  It isn't mentioned why
the original behaviour was removed.  I'm sure there's some better
reason than that tracing can be difficult when processes are
starting!!!  It is of course extremely useful to get a shell as
quickly as possible so you can inspect the starting system.

The solution to the trace problem can't be to start the shell even
later!  Why not take this one more step and remove the shell
completely b/c people might interfere with the system...

Please make the old shell default, and introduce a new flag
-safe_shell or something.


/martin