As till now I seem to be the only one really favouring the delayed
startup I think a vote is not necessary.
I will make the delayed start configureable and set it to false as a
default. We can change it then if we come to another decision later.
Christian
Am 10.08.2012 11:04, schrieb Andreas Pieber:
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/>
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
