geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Re: Startup Scripts discussion ( GERONIMO-693 )
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:50:14 GMT
Doesn't matter to me, going to symlink that puppy into /usr/local/bin on my machine anyway
-- without the extention :)


-David


On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 09:50:09PM -0400, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> 	I'm in favor of the .sh extension for shell scripts
> 
> Aaron
> 
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Jeff Genender wrote:
> > sissonj@insession.com wrote:
> > > Are you concerned that we may change shells in the future?
> > > 
> > > The startup script should have the following on the first line to instruct

> > > the system which shell interpreter we are using.
> > > #! /bin/sh
> > > 
> > > It seems that a lot of applications use the .sh extension (except Apache 
> > > HTTPD's apachectl):
> > > Tomcat -  catalina.sh
> > > Apache HTTPD - apachectl
> > > WebSphere - startServer.sh
> > > WebLogic - startWebLogic.sh
> > > JBoss - run.sh
> > > 
> > > A number of benefits of using an extension are:
> > > a) easy to find shell script files, just search for files ending in .sh
> > > b) makes it easier to chmod all script files due to previous point.
> > > c) easier for FTP clients to automatically determine whether to use ascii 
> > > or binary transfers.
> > > d) could make it easier for svn property defaults, e.g.  *.sh = 
> > > svn:eol-style=native
> > > 
> > > I would be interested in the opinions of others on this topic.
> > 
> > I would supply the token .sh and .bat files.
> > 
> > Jeff
> > 

Mime
View raw message