Now I'm getting confused... Thanks to those who pointed out my lack of understanding of SysV runlevels.
However it is done, does anyone want something like SysV, where there are different levels of services available at each runlevel, and you can do something like jboss-init 3 to get to having only the "level 3" services running? Is it sufficient to have more control over deployment ordering? Who likes the list of directories approach? (either level1, level2,... or system/base system/..., user/base, user/app, user/final or whatever) Who likes the lexicographically ordered list approach? (one deploy directory, files named 0001boot.sar, 011jboss.sar, 012jetty.sar, ..., 990app27.ear, 991userstartup.sar) (one possible problem with this is if you want to insert something between 780app1.ear and 782userservices.sar you have to rename stuff. But it does give you more control over the ordering). Personally I like the list of directories, with no other runlevel ideas. I don't mind sorting the file names, but would rather not force people to rely on it. (I'm happy with list of directories + sorted filenames within a directory). Hiram, I don't understand your problem with deploy dirs and different configurations. Can't you have directories deploy/conf1/lib deploy/conf1 deploy/conf2/lib deploy/conf2 ? Are you suggesting that the default dir setup be like deploy/default/lib deploy/default including the conf name in the path? david jencks On 2001.12.11 09:29:30 -0500 Hiram Chirino wrote: > > I agree with David. > > If we wanted to aproach SysV runlevels, our conf directories would have > to > be the ones that would be called level1,...,level6 > > I also want to make a quick point on something that has bothered me since > > the begining. I use multiple conf's in a single JBoss installation. > This > forces me to also create multiple deploy directories since I don't want > the > same deployments for all the configurations. My beef is that it seems > natural to me to have a different set of deployments for different > configurations, but the way the directory structure is right now does not > > lend itself too well for that type of organization. > > Am I just smoking crack or something?? > > Hiram > >From: David Budworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >CC: David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jboss-dev > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] (rh) startup levels proposal and questions. > >Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:16:43 -0800 > > > >I would also like to make sure that any docs, don't refer to this > >(assuming it gets implemented) as being like SysV runlevels (like > >Linux,Solaris,etc..) > > > >runlevels aren't even remotely working like this. Each runlevel in a > >SysV init style is a self contained state. > > > >Meaning, "init 5" does not do init 1,2,3,4,5. Runlevel 5, contains > >every thing that should/should not be running when at level 5. > > > >That's why they have > >S01xxx > >S02yyy > >K01zzz > > > >The K??* scripts run first, then all S??* run, in sorted order. > > > >I do wonder though, will splitting the directories up make > >administration more difficult? > > > >If you want guaranteed deployment order, you could always name all the > >items in deploy/* with numbers at the start. > > > >ie: > >00hsqldb-service.xml > >00blah-service.xml > >01cluster-service.xml > > > >Then just have the deployer always ensure to sort the dir list, and > >process in order. > > > >That way, in Bill's case, he could just call his SAR (or whatever), > >99Bill.sar > > > >Guaranteed to deploy after the ones that sort first. > > > >Having the whole runlevel type thing might just confuse people > >(especially unix admins, if you don't give them SysV type runlevels) > > > >Just a thought, > > > >-David > > > > > >On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Jason Dillon wrote: > > > > > > Everything in level1 will be deployed, then everything in level2, > etc. > > I > > > > think this will give enough control over deployment order for > almost > >all > > > > circumstances. (I'd like examples of anything it won't work for). > > > > > > I think we might want to use different names, as level1-6 might get a > > >little > > > confusing. Perhaps we could assign these levels meaningful names: > > > > > > bootstrap > > > system > > > user > > > > > > Could also nest the structure for better naming too: > > > > > > system/ > > > bootstrap/ > > > core/ > > > db/ > > > cluster/ > > > jms/ > > > user/ > > > whatever/ > > > samesame/ > > > > > > > Now, in Linux you can init 3 or init 6. So far you can't do this > >here. Is > > > > that a valuable feature for jboss? (i.e. being able to say "deploy > > >levels > > > > 1,2,3. Now deploy 4,5,6. Now undeploy 6, 5, 4, 3) How would it be > > >used? > > > > > > Yikes, I hope there aren't any Linux systems that will init 6 and do > > > anything short of boot... I hope you mean init 5 (X11). > > > > > > > Would this be more or less convenient to use than a deployment > script > > > > facility where each script basically had a list of what is in one > of > >these > > > > level directories? > > > > > > I don't think that the actual notion of levels makes sence for the > AD, > >but > > > seperating things for ordering certainly does. > > > > > > --jason > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Jboss-development mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Jboss-development mailing list > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
