I've come across the need to kill grandchild processes, which seems like a well-known pain point in process management and is prominently featured in the gotchas document, so I've turned to https://docs.rs/process-wrap/latest/process_wrap/index.html to try to implement some platform-specific solution for Windows via JobObjects.
It's possible that I could just be missing something, but unfortunately it seems really difficult / impossible to combine duct with process-wrap? As far as I can tell, the only way to get JobObjects working (without digging into unsafe code) is abandoning duct and trying to re-implement any functionality that I'd be losing as a custom wrapper in process-wrap?
Do you know of any way to actually get JobObjects hacked into something already using duct? Or would you be interested in somehow integrating with process-wrap to provide that functionality? Or is the only reason that the grandchild problem isn't solved with something like process-wrap because of macOS (if this is the case, I would, and I reckon others would too, find it useful if this functionally was added to duct but gated behind a feature)?
Sorry for the loads of questions, and thanks for the otherwise fantastically useful crate!
I've come across the need to kill grandchild processes, which seems like a well-known pain point in process management and is prominently featured in the gotchas document, so I've turned to https://docs.rs/process-wrap/latest/process_wrap/index.html to try to implement some platform-specific solution for Windows via
JobObjects.It's possible that I could just be missing something, but unfortunately it seems really difficult / impossible to combine
ductwithprocess-wrap? As far as I can tell, the only way to getJobObjects working (without digging into unsafe code) is abandoningductand trying to re-implement any functionality that I'd be losing as a custom wrapper inprocess-wrap?Do you know of any way to actually get
JobObjects hacked into something already usingduct? Or would you be interested in somehow integrating withprocess-wrapto provide that functionality? Or is the only reason that the grandchild problem isn't solved with something likeprocess-wrapbecause of macOS (if this is the case, I would, and I reckon others would too, find it useful if this functionally was added toductbut gated behind a feature)?Sorry for the loads of questions, and thanks for the otherwise fantastically useful crate!