On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/7/16 Scott McKellar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> --- Aaron Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> <snip -- about a system init script, at least for simple cases> >> >> Any init script should respect the distinction between OpenSRF (a >> generic infrastructure layer) and Evergreen (a specific application >> built on top of OpenSRF). >> >> In principle it should be possible, and preferably easy, to run >> OpenSRF for other things besides Evergreen, or even without Evergreen >> at all. The separation between those layers is still not completely >> clean, but hopefully it will be some day, and in the meanwhile we >> should at least maintain the pretense of independence. >> >> So I would suggest two init scripts. The first one would initialize >> OpenSRF. The second one would either call the first one or verify >> that OpenSRF was already up and running, and then initialize the >> pieces specific to Evergreen. >> >> > > I've been thinking about this a little bit. > > Given that Evergreen is an OpenSRF application, I'm not sure what it > would mean to initialize OpenSRF without initializing the pieces > specific to Evergreen; opensrf.xml defines the OpenSRF services that > should be started up as part of start_perl / start_c. > > I suppose you could have a "opensrf" init script that just performed > the equivalent of stop/start/restart[router&&perl&&c] (along with > dependency checking to ensure postgresql / ejabberd is running), and > an "evergreen" init script to stop/start/restart clark-kent.pl / SIP > server / assorted other daemons, and make "opensrf" and apache as > dependencies. That separation would buy us the ability to restart the > daemons without restarting the router/c/perl services. > > I definitely like the idea of a universal init script. It's going to > be most useful for single-server systems, of course; if you've moved > Apache and PostgreSQL and ejabber and memcached off to separate > servers for scaling purposes, the scripts will obviously have to be > tweaked. But at that point you're in a different realm than just "I > have a spare server and want to try out Evergreen in the simplest > possible fashion" :)
Another thing to consider (in the "pros" column for separation) is that we will eventually be able to address each service independently for start/stop/restart. I was hoping this would happen for 1.4, but 2.0 is more likely. Still, separating now will make things easier down the road. -- Mike Rylander | VP, Research and Design | Equinox Software, Inc. / The Evergreen Experts | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | web: http://www.esilibrary.com
