Is there any way to set the application name or process name that
appears in task manager for a program?
On May 21, 2010, at 9:55 AM, 12345678 123456789 wrote:
Is there any way to set the application name or process name that
appears in task manager for a program?Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
$0 = “This is my program\0”
But you might have trouble if you want to set the name to something
longer than the original program + args. (I.e., $0.length
You can also run into trouble if a process monitor (e.g., monit) is
relying on the process name.
-Rob
Rob B. wrote:
On May 21, 2010, at 9:55 AM, 12345678 123456789 wrote:
Is there any way to set the application name or process name that
appears in task manager for a program?Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
$0 = “This is my program\0”
But you might have trouble if you want to set the name to something
longer than the original program + args. (I.e., $0.lengthYou can also run into trouble if a process monitor (e.g., monit) is
relying on the process name.-Rob
Rob B.
http://agileconsultingllc.com
[email protected]
http://gaslightsoftware.com
[email protected]
Is there something I need to require at the beginning of my code because
I tried this when I googled the answer and it doesn’t work. I think that
only applies to Ruby on Rails.
Here are the first few lines of my code:
$defout.sync=true
require ‘uri’
require ‘net/http’
require ‘FileUtils’
require ‘date’
require ‘yaml’
$0 = “ProgramName”
On May 21, 2010, at 10:26 AM, TJ nonstickglue wrote:
$0 = “This is my program\0”
http://agileconsultingllc.com$0 = “ProgramName”
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Nothing special
[ruby-1.8.6] :Users/rab $ ruby -e ‘$0=“Here I am\0”;sleep 60’ & ps ww
[1] 70676
PID TT STAT TIME COMMAND
62343 s000 S+ 0:00.28 -bash
70613 s001 S 0:00.12 -bash
70676 s001 R 0:00.00 Here I am
But you do need to include the NUL at the end “\0” I believe.
-Rob
Looks like it does with one-liner.
ruby -e ‘$0=“Here I am\0”;puts Kernel::fork;sleep 60’ & ps ww
Must be a keyboard thing here…
MarkT
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Mark T [email protected] wrote:
Should this survive a 1.8.7 fork?
MarkT
Should this survive a 1.8.7 fork?
MarkT