I am the original contributor and I am ok with 4. Commit is here:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1093/commits/5f90cb714dc48264e0f863ce864ac41ddb93556c
And yes, we need at least some LSB complaince to manage NiFi using
Ansible :) otherwise, I have to check ps a | grep NiFi output to see
if
I would say go with 4.
Ansible will see 1, 2, 3, 4, 69 as not running and do the correct thing.
Puppet sees 0 vs non zero. I think If he service is up running and
responding to pings return 0 anything else should return another code. This
will allow these tools to restart the application to get
Andre,
In that case, I agree with you that a 4 would be the proper response. Things
that I can
think of that may cause it not to respond:
1) Long Garbage Collection pause
2) Stuck in some sort of infinite loop or just way overtaxed CPU
3) Too many open files prevents it from accepting the
devs,
I am reviewing PR#1093, which happens to be a great contribution towards a
LSB compliant NiFi (something the overall community seems to be eager to
have).
The PR basically changes RunNiFi.java so that it returns a numeric exit
code compatible with the LSB specifications.
I am happy with
