[racket] adding other objects to custodian

On 06.07.10 04:45, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Just so you know, I have a good reason. The process in question is a
> number-crunching engine that can be many processes per hour, and needs
> special attention. (In fact, increased stability is one of the reasons
> that I moved the code away from a C library and into its own host OS
> process, a la Google Chrome.) I'm sure we can all think of scenarios
> with a number-crunching Unix process in which its EOF-handling code is
> insufficient. Forcibly killing the process is the last of several things
> I do to be confident that the process will die when it's supposed to. If
> not all processes die, even in event of other error, important
> production servers can fail.

I am sure you know what you are doing. :)

> This seems sensible to me. And note that I do stop short of
> explosive-bolt interlocks and thermite. ;)

When I played with this (I have since eliminated this code) I had a 
thread running which used will-executors (for garbage collected threads) 
and thread-dead-evt events (for normal deaths) to watch over threads and 
kill linked (via weak hashes and weak boxes) ones as needed. Inspired by 
Erlang.

I removed the code since I did not like it astethicaly and it did not 
help with making my program more robust (rather to the contrary, 
unfortunately).

-- 
regards,
Jakub Piotr Cłapa