geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From siss...@insession.com
Subject Re: Startup Scripts discussion ( GERONIMO-693 )
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2005 01:27:58 GMT
toby cabot <toby@caboteria.org> wrote on 05/07/2005 12:59:14 AM:

> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:22:59PM +1100, sissonj@insession.com wrote:
> > what do people think 
> > about basing the startup scripts (as much as possible) on tomcat's 
> > catalina.bat & catalina.sh 
> > 
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-tomcat-catalina/catalina/src/bin/
> > (since they have been used for years and many users would be familiar 
with 
> > their style of configuration)?
> 
> I like the idea of using a well-known baseline for the Geronimo
> scripts, but could we call the shell script "geronimo" instead of
> "geronimo.sh"?  I prefer to not expose the implementation (shell
> script) in the interface.

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.

Thanks for the feedback.

John
> 
> Thanks,
> Toby


Mime
View raw message