I actually completely disagree. I don't think delaying a start is good, I think logging / screaming why it isn't starting might be good.
On Aug 9, 2012, at 12:48 PM, Christian Schneider wrote: > I mostly agree besides for the default. I think we all agree that the delayed > start of the console is the better option for beginners while > a lot of karaf developers like the console that starts directly. > > For this reason I think we should have the delayed start as default for two > reasons: > 1. We are only a handfull of developers while there are thousands of users > and most are beginners or at least do not have a deep understanding of karaf. > 2. The delayed start is a nice out of the box experience for people who start > karaf for the first time. Especially the beginners will not find the option > to turn this on easily > > Christian > > Am 09.08.2012 19:40, schrieb Ioannis Canellos: >> I've read a lot of interesting opinions and I'd like to share mine: >> >> i) The Karaf shell should start asap, unless explicitly configured. The >> enter thing is nice but should be optional imho. >> ii) Determining when Karaf is started is one thing, determining when an >> application is started is another. >> iii) A log entry that says Karaf has started sounds enough, we can >> optionally provide that info through the info command. >> iv) Different users have different needs on what started means. To cover >> all cases we could allow the user to use a configuration file that will >> contain requirements (package, service etc) and have everyone configure it >> however he wishes. >> > > > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com >
