Hi, Seems I started a somehow more fundamental discussion here about whether karaf-startup should be delayed at all.
As far as I can tell now there seems to be some common ground now. Ioannis summed it up pretty good: Providing some method of configuring startup-delays OK. That's also what I had in mind. I actually don't have a strong opinion about what should be karaf default. There are valid points on both sides. I personally have no problem with the "Press Enter"-approach but that's just me. The progress bar looks a bit odd, because it may revert to less progress when new bundles are installed by e.g. the features-installer. kind regards, christoph On 09/08/12 21:09, Achim Nierbeck wrote: > Christian, > > I'm sorry but I don't see any agreement on delay beeing the better > option, or beeing the default. > If you think it's ok to have the delay for your customers I'm fine if > you apply it to your custom distribution. > I'm also fine with opening a way to tell the shell how long it should > wait. I'm also fine to keep the "locked" shell > in Karaf for people to use for their own distribution. > So I'm +1 for the sum-up of Ioannis. > > @Johan > how about a "Karaf started in MM:SS" in log :-D > > regards, Achim > > 2012/8/9 Christian Schneider <[email protected]>: >> 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 >> > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
