Asiri Rathnayake wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Asiri Rathnayake < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Asiri Rathnayake < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> asiri (SVN) wrote: >>>>> Author: asiri >>>>> Date: 2009-04-29 11:14:28 +0200 (Wed, 29 Apr 2009) >>>>> New Revision: 19186 >>>>> >>>>> Modified: >>>>> >>>> >>>> platform/core/branches/xwiki-core-1.8/xwiki-officeimporter/src/main/java/org/xwiki/officeimporter/internal/openoffice/DefaultOpenOfficeServerManager.java >>>>> Log: >>>>> XWIKI-3721: Starting an already started openoffice server should be >>>> prohibited >>>> Shouldn't the UNKNOWN state also be considered, like: >>>> >>>> if (ServerState.UNKNOWN != currentState && ServerState.RUNNING != >>>> currentState) >>> >>> The server state may go into the UNKNOWN state if something goes wrong >>> while trying to start the openoffice server. The reason I added this UNKNOWN >>> state was because it is possible that the OOo server process indeed started >>> but jodconverter was unable to connect to it. I suggested mirko to kill the >>> OOo server process if this happens and he agreed: >>> http://groups.google.com/group/jodconverter/browse_thread/thread/3c33c6183ff2bccf >>> >>> But still this issue has not been fixed as it seems. So yes, we should be >>> considered about UNKNOWN state too. I will fix this. >>> >> Ok, now I'm having second thoughts. I think we should get rid of the >> UNKNOWN state. Because If the server goes into this unknown state there is >> no comming back... the admin will have to restart the XE. >> >> For an example, the admin might want to kill the straying OOo server >> process and try to start it again from the UI. But this is not possible with >> the UNKNOWN state and the above check. If it goes to UNKNOWN state there is >> no comming back :( >> > > Nope, no need to remove the UNKNOWN state because it is true, we don't know > the state. But not have the check you mentioned. That is not do: > > if (ServerState.UNKNOWN != currentState && ServerState.RUNNING != > currentState) > > would be ok. So the condition is simply: > > if (ServerState.RUNNING != > currentState) > > I think this is more correct.
OK, you know better. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
