That is practically what I meant. Maybe with an exception to the "returns right away" part. We have somehow similar "spawn" flag used for tc:start and perhaps it should be used for cargo containers too, so user could see the log on the console and Ctrl-C containers when needed.
I wasn't sure if we should have "cargo" word in our goal names, but referencing cargo in tc:cargo-start vs. tc:container-start can be actually good thing. So, it is still open for discussion. :-) regards, Eugene Hung Huynh wrote: > Or we can something like this? > > tc:cargo-start --> returns right away after appservers start > tc:cargo-stop --> stop all appservers > > Hung- > > Eugene Kuleshov wrote: >> Steven Harris wrote: >> >>> Can we stop it just by keeping track of the processes and then >>> killing them? >>> >> Killing them is not a problem. When to kill - is. :-) >> For instance, when using tc:run I currently assume that all started >> processes will eventually complete and exit. That won't be the case for >> the web application servers. >> >>> I'm assuming cargo doesn't have >>> some sort of standard shutdown thing that each container that it >>> controls can implement. >>> >>> >> Actually it does. That is why I am going to add tc:container-stop >> goal. See example in my first email. >> >> Another useful improvement could be to optionally pass list of node >> names to start/stop with tc:run or tc:container-start/stop, so we could >> have configuration in a single pom, but split actual processes across >> multiple physical nodes. For example: >> >> mvn -DnodeNames=master tc:run >> mvn -DnodeNames=worker1,worker2 tc:run >> mvn -DnodeNames=worker3,worker4 tc:run >> >> regards, >> Eugene >> >> > _______________________________________________ tc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev
