toby cabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/07/2005 12:59:14 AM: > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:22:59PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > what do people think > > about basing the startup scripts (as much as possible) on tomcat's > > catalina.bat & catalina.sh > > http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-tomcat-catalina/catalina/src/bin/ > > (since they have been used for years and many users would be familiar with > > their style of configuration)? > > I like the idea of using a well-known baseline for the Geronimo > scripts, but could we call the shell script "geronimo" instead of > "geronimo.sh"? I prefer to not expose the implementation (shell > script) in the interface.
Are you concerned that we may change shells in the future? The startup script should have the following on the first line to instruct the system which shell interpreter we are using. #! /bin/sh It seems that a lot of applications use the .sh extension (except Apache HTTPD's apachectl): Tomcat - catalina.sh Apache HTTPD - apachectl WebSphere - startServer.sh WebLogic - startWebLogic.sh JBoss - run.sh A number of benefits of using an extension are: a) easy to find shell script files, just search for files ending in .sh b) makes it easier to chmod all script files due to previous point. c) easier for FTP clients to automatically determine whether to use ascii or binary transfers. d) could make it easier for svn property defaults, e.g. *.sh = svn:eol-style=native I would be interested in the opinions of others on this topic. Thanks for the feedback. John > > Thanks, > Toby
