2011/7/21 Mladen Turk <[email protected]> > On 07/21/2011 08:58 AM, Hans Rupp wrote: > >> 2011/7/19 Mladen Turk<[email protected]> >> >> >>> Well, write an ant task and start your application via ant. >>> This is the first thing that comes to my mind. >>> Or write you own simple class that will exec new jvm and >>> monitor it's exit value. >>> >>> Thanks again, but i'm not familiar with ant and don't how to write a task >>> >> that can permanently monitor my application. >> > > So you are out of luck then ;) > > > I think your second suggestion isn't realy a solution, what should i do if >> the monitoring jvm crashes? >> > > That's why its called "monitoring" it doesn't do any job except > checking if the child is alive, and if not restart it according to > some rules. People even write this kind of layer for standard services, > because your application can become unresponsive without > crashing the JVM. Also if you think your application could > crash the JVM your are in much bigger problem. > > I think your entire use case is sort of an oxymoron. > You wish a full blown service (like you've said "os-layer") > and still to have the userland GUI. Split those two parts > and use the IPC for communication between them. > > > So i should have two jvm's, one running my non-gui stuff as a windows service and one running the gui as a windows task right? And this two should communicate via IPC e.g tcp/ip right? But isn't that a lot of overhead if i can have it all running in one jvm without IPC? Can please explain why one shouldn't use a service with a gui ? Sorry but i still don't understand that point.
> > > Regards > -- > ^TM > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > user-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<[email protected]> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
