OK, it might be a good idea to split the discussion here... I think we should rather call a vote to get the default shell delay discussion to a point (JB?) and use this thread rather to discuss how we want to implement what Ioannis summed up as:
"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." WDYT? Kind regards, Andreas On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]> wrote: > So why don't you use paxexam-karaf then, no need to use shell scripts .... > > 2012/8/10 Christian Schneider <[email protected]>: >> The scripting is mainly important for testing. You start a fresh camel, >> install stuff in it, do some tests and shut it down again. >> >> Perhaps the testing framework is good enough for that case. Still for some >> reason our test guys like to use an out of the box camel or Talend ESB and >> do their tests with this. >> Of course as they mainly use Talend ESB it should be easy to have it on in >> this case. So this is not a big reason to have it on by default in pure >> Karaf. >> >> To sum it up I would like to have the delay as a default as I think it helps >> beginners but from the Talend point of view having the option in the distro >> is good enough. So I will go with the majority. >> >> Christian >> >> Am 10.08.2012 09:55, schrieb Achim Nierbeck: >> >>> +1 on Ioannis, >>> >>> and tbh I don't see how a hit enter does improve here, >>> last time I used it I had to hit 4 times on enter to get a shell, so >>> there was in no means >>> any better usage then before. >>> Concerning using command-scripts I still don't see the issue with that, >>> Karaf is a Server it's not supposed to be rebooted every 5 minutes it's >>> build >>> to last for ever, or memory does us part. Just like any other container. >>> And from my experience with Operations I can guarantee you they are far >>> more >>> into the "where do I monitor your app?" question then "is it already >>> up and running?" >>> For operations it's far more vital to tell that the application isn't >>> running anymore cause they >>> have to guarantee certain SLAs and this is best monitored with nexus / >>> JMX at this point. >>> They don't necessarily rely on a shell, and don't care about the first >>> 5 minutes a process takes to >>> get up and running. >>> For developers I'd say it still sufficient to use "la" and if it isn't >>> available I'd say "damn you are fast" :) >>> >>> regards, Achim >>> >>> 2012/8/10 Ioannis Canellos <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> Christian, nobody said that waiting is bad, on the contrary it is really >>>> nice. Personally I find it a great idea. >>>> The point of argument is if it is going to be the default behavior or >>>> not. >>>> >>>> The problem that you describe about the new user is well known and all of >>>> us have been asked questions by users that fall into that problem. >>>> >>>> The question is, should this user problem impose a default startup delay >>>> to >>>> all users? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Ioannis Canellos* >>>> * >>>> FuseSource <http://fusesource.com> >>>> >>>> ** >>>> Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com >>>> ** >>>> Twitter: iocanel >>>> * >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Christian Schneider >> http://www.liquid-reality.de >> >> Open Source Architect >> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com >> > > > > -- > > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC > OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> > Committer & Project Lead > OPS4J Pax for Vaadin > <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home> Commiter & Project > Lead > blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
