So what are the reasons why you dislike it? Delaying the start of the
shell till the deisred runlevel is reached mainly has the goal that all
commands are availble.
Currently we have this in 2.2.x:
A beginner types a command he knows should work on the shell as soon as
it opens. It complains that the command is not found. We developers all
know why this happens and know the commands will be there shortly.
You start karaf and then want to execute a script on it using e.g.
bin/client or ssh. The script fails as not all commands are available.
You run the script again and it works. So you will introduce a delay of
some seconds before you start the script. This works sometimes and
sometimes not.
How do you solve these problems without the delay and why do you think
it is bad?
Of course logging a failure in the startup and logging when it is
complete (at least runlevel wise) is a good idea but it does not help
with the above cases.
Christian
Am 09.08.2012 21:08, schrieb Johan Edstrom:
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
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
