geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: Startup Scripts discussion ( GERONIMO-693 )
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2005 01:50:09 GMT
	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