> 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?
I don't see how a SysV-like configuration helps... rather it
> david, stop wasting my time
>
David I apologies, I feel bad and I will explain the way I see it now.
2 steps:
there is a "creation" of the service step and a "start" of the service state.
We could in fact say postRegister() should be used for that, but then andreas pointed
out that he ne
component (and then as well as
the JBoss component).
Andy
- Original Message -
From: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: RE: [JBoss-dev] (rh) startup levels proposal and questions.
> Maybe
david, stop wasting my time
__
View this jboss-dev thread in the online forums:
http://jboss.org/forums/thread.jsp?forum=66&thread=5378
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTE
Maybe you could give a specific example of why the 2 stage startup is useful. Even
Rickard said the "init" step should not refer to anything outside the mbean being
inited. I can't see any way the mbeans can distinguish 1,2,3, or 17 stage startup if
only the last can refer to other mbeans. Ar
I like the idea of
site
\- default
\- conf
\- deploy
\- logs
\- whatever
\- cluster
\- conf
\- deploy
\- logs
\- whatever
Having the named deploy dirs like system/user/etc still doesn't give the
user an instant clue as to what runs first.
I
> What is "stepped create/start"? Do you mean you put
> back init() and start()
> for mbeans?
Yes
Stepped means (nothing really) that I have made the beans that are dependent and the
beans that are deployed as part of the same page (service.xml/jboss.jcml start) call
their create and start in
Actually what if the deploy directory was a subdir of the conf directory?
That doesnt seem like it would be too confusing to even a new user.
Al
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Hiram, I don't understand your problem with deploy dirs and different
>> configurations. Can't you have directories
>>
>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
>
Yes, that would
> non-explicitely build dependencies between starting units. (BTW I
> reimplemented the page scope thing and stepped create/start bill
> was bitching about) But for now, let's see how the simple depend
What is "stepped create/start"? Do you mean you put back init() and start()
for mbeans?
___
> Now I'm getting confused...
> Is it sufficient to have more control over deployment
> ordering?
>
> Who likes the list of directories approach?
Guys
I am rewriting still some stuff in the controller, I reimplemented the "depends" on
the explicit mbean name, did away with some mbean-ref stuf
orth <[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:
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]>
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
> 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
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David
> Jencks
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 5:33 PM
> To: jboss-dev
> Subject: [JBoss-dev] (rh) startup levels proposal and questions.
>
>
> There's been a l
There's been a lot of discussion recently about (to put it bluntly and with
slight exaggeration) chaos in the rh startup and deployment sequence.
One of the proposals was startup levels, like in linux.
One thing you can do right now is give AutoDeployer lots of directories to
watch:
17 matches
Mail list logo
