FWIW I agree with Rafi - qpid-run is quite elegant/sophisticated so whatever we do, please let it be :-)
Thanks, Marnie On 5/21/08, Rafael Schloming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Aidan Skinner wrote: > >> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Rajith Attapattu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> We can write a new ctl script that covers that functionality and can live >>> along side the older scripts. >>> >> >> We really don't need more duplication on this project, and I don't see >> the need for an entirely new startup/shutdown mechanism. There might >> be value in adding a --stop to qpid-server, and there's definately >> something to be said for having an LSB-compliant init script. I don't >> see what value implementing Yet Another Startup Script has, and it's >> not like fooctl is standardised, massively more useful than what we >> have or even particularly common. >> > > +1 > > If there are specific issues with the current set of scripts we should > address them, e.g. run.sh may just be dead code, I don't know if anyone > still uses it, and certainly if someone does it should probably be better > named. > > In general I would be -1 to anything involving throwing away qpid-run. > There are a ton of debug options, os dependent hacks, etc, all of which > generally take time to get right because nobody thinks of them up front when > they sit down and write a launcher script from scratch. > > If there is really need for a single unified script we should clearly > articulate the issue and figure out how to address it without throwing away > qpid-run. > > --Rafael >
