[guest - Mon Jun 6 10:19:25 2005]:
Show quoted text
Well, maybe.
You're not the first person to suggest this, but there are difficulties.
Proc::ProcessTable requires a "C" plug-in - not a .XS module, but an
OS-specific subroutine. This would be essentially a complete rewrite. If
this had been done three or four years ago in lieu of
Win32::Process::Info, there would have been some value to my employer -
especially if I had coupled it with a plug-in corresponding to
VMS::Process. But now, it's hard to justify my employer paying me money
to work on either of these.
This was essentially the state of things at the last query. I suggested
to the queryer that he (or she, I forget) could do their own plug-in
using Win32::Process::Info, Proc::ProcessTable (cygwin version) and the
source of the cygwin "ps" command as resources, but nothing came of
that. Since then:
Proc::ProcessTable appears to have gone fallow. The most recent update
(v0.39, as you pointed out) is 03-Oct-2003. This was supposed to include
a darwin plug-in I wrote as a warm-up for tackling the problem under
Windows and/or VMS. But not everything got into the manifest. I told Dan
Urist (the author of Proc::ProcessTable) about this, but let him know
there was an update coming (they changed the interface for Mac OS 10.3).
Before I could get my stuff together and he could publish, he lost a
disk drive, and there things remain. The development got moved to
SourceForge sometime not long before all this
(
http://sourceforge.net/projects/proc-ptable/), but the bug reports seem
to be piling up unaddressed. In addition to my darwin package, I see a
cygwin update in "Patches." Of course, if we can't get
Proc::ProcessTable republished, there's not much we can do.
Also, I have decided to retire the end of this month. I don't own a
Wintel machine, and have no plans to acquire one. My Win32:: modules
will probably be marked "abandoned" in the next couple weeks. I'm not
sure what the process is for adopting an abandoned module, but you may
wish to look into it.
I'll leave this request open for a bit (or indefinitely, if something
pushes it out of my mind), to give a consistent place to post comments
back and forth. I sympathize with your request, but don't see any way to
do anything about it.
Tom Wyant
