Idea: Control over child processes

%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-2652817%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EIdea%3A%20Control%20over%20child%20processes%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-2652817%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EThere%20are%20times%20when%20integration%20is%20required%20and%20the%20container%20gets%20in%20the%20way.%26nbsp%3B%20The%20upcoming%20Shared%20Package%20Containers%20will%20help%20when%20both%20parts%20are%20MSIX%20packages%2C%20but%20not%20so%20much%20when%20the%20secondary%20is%20not%20containerized.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EIn%20App-V%20this%20was%20solved%20by%20RunVirtual%2C%20a%20way%20to%20designate%20that%20a%20given%20process%20name%20should%20run%20inside%20a%20particular%20virtual%20environment.%26nbsp%3B%20This%20would%20also%20work%20for%20MSIX%2C%20but%20I'd%20like%20to%20propose%20a%20different%20idea%20that%20likely%20would%20offer%20solutions%20to%20more%20kinds%20of%20problems%20with%20containerization%20and%20multiple%20applications.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EWhat%20I%20would%20like%20is%20a%20new%20addition%20to%20the%20AppXManifest%20whereby%20I%20can%20list%20some%20named%20processes%20to%20be%20controlled.%26nbsp%3B%20If%20a%20process%20is%20named%2C%20it%20would%20have%20one%20of%20two%20settings%2C%20marking%20the%20process%20to%20explicitly%20run%20inside%20or%20outside%20of%20the%20container.%26nbsp%3B%20This%20list%20would%20only%20apply%20to%20new%20processes%20being%20started%20as%20a%20child%20process%20of%20a%20process%20already%20in%20the%20container.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EThe%20flexibility%20of%20this%20would%20be%20quite%20helpful%20as%20more%20apps%20move%20into%20the%20container.%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-2730543%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Idea%3A%20Control%20over%20child%20processes%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-2730543%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EHi%20%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fuser%2Fviewprofilepage%2Fuser-id%2F146612%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%40TIMOTHY%20MANGAN%3C%2FA%3E%2C%20could%20you%20please%20file%20this%20in%20the%20MSIX%20Ideas%20section%3F%3CBR%20%2F%3E%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fmsix%2Fidb-p%2FMSIXIdeas%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3EMSIX%20-%20Microsoft%20Tech%20Community%3C%2FA%3E%3CBR%20%2F%3EThanks!%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E
MVP

There are times when integration is required and the container gets in the way.  The upcoming Shared Package Containers will help when both parts are MSIX packages, but not so much when the secondary is not containerized.

 

In App-V this was solved by RunVirtual, a way to designate that a given process name should run inside a particular virtual environment.  This would also work for MSIX, but I'd like to propose a different idea that likely would offer solutions to more kinds of problems with containerization and multiple applications.

 

What I would like is a new addition to the AppXManifest whereby I can list some named processes to be controlled.  If a process is named, it would have one of two settings, marking the process to explicitly run inside or outside of the container.  This list would only apply to new processes being started as a child process of a process already in the container.

 

The flexibility of this would be quite helpful as more apps move into the container.

2 Replies

Hi @TIMOTHY MANGAN, could you please file this in the MSIX Ideas section?
MSIX - Microsoft Tech Community
Thanks!

Moved to: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/msix/idea-control-over-child-processes/idi-p/2730783#M266

[Note: I actually tried to put this in ideas originally. The UI in the gallery maybe could be easier;)]