geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Colasurdo <davec...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: [LONG] Re: Startup Scripts - foreground and background
Date Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:45:57 GMT


John Sisson wrote:
> I am reviewing Dave's startup patches ( GERONIMO-1166 ) and have a 
> couple of ideas for comment.
> [1]. I propose we provide a geronimo.sh file that is modelled on 
> Tomcat's catalina.sh file ( 
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/container/tc5.5.x/catalina/src/bin/ 
> ), as a large number of users would already be familiar with its syntax 
> and environment variable naming conventions and it would be good if we 
> had some consistency across Apache products.
> geronimo.sh would support options such as:
> 
> jpda start    - Start Geronimo under JPDA debugger
> run             - Start Geronimo in the current window (same as Dave's 
> proposed -foreground)
> start           - Start Geronimo in a separate window (same as Dave's 
> proposed -background)
> 
No major objections.  Though I don't think "run" and "start" are real 
intuitive to the user.  The unix environment does start a background 
process.


> Also make startup.sh consistent with Tomcat's startup.sh and move the 
> redirection logic and foreground/background logic to geronimo.sh.
> 
+1

> If we are consistent with Tomcat it means that if an option isn't passed 
> to geronimo.sh (e.g. start) then usage information will be printed to 
> the terminal. If users invoke startup.sh, it in turn invokes geronimo.sh 
> with the start option (consistent with Tomcat).
> 
> I am happy to make these changes if I have no objections.
> 
> [2]. File name used for redirected output when using startup.sh -background
> 
>    Currently the patch redirects output to a startupProgress.log file. I 
> am thinking the file should be renamed to geronimo.out (consistent with 
> Tomcat's catalina.out) since it may contain more than startup messages 
> over the life of the process.
> 
Can you explain the relationship of the startup log to the other log 
files.  I thought there were other log files that captured all of logged 
  runtime events and this log (startupProgress.log) would be used 
primarily for startup status.

Also, be aware that the current patches are deleting the old log 
(currently startupProgress.log) during startup.


> [3]. Improving format of progress messages in redirected output when 
> using startup.sh -background
> 
yep.. this definitely needs to be addressed.

> For the startup output to not appear garbled in the file that output is 
> redirected to (due to the carriage returns generated by 
> ProgressBarStartupMonitor) we probably need a modified version of 
> ProgressBarStartupMonitor that outputs a line when a configuration is 
> starting/started (without the update thread that updates the line approx 
> every 500ms that the ProgressBarStartupMonitor has).
> 
> I initially thought we could use the -quiet option, but that results in 
> no progress being output and it would be nice to be able to look at the 
> geronimo.out file to see what is happening rather than having to look 
> through possibly heaps of messages in the log4j log files.
> 
> It would be also be helpful if the output redirected to the geronimo.out 
> file also has the summary of listening ports and started application 
> modules & web applications.
> [4]. Proposed new Geronimo startup options:
> 
> -interactive (default)
>        Specify this when output is sent to an interactive 
> terminal/console.  During startup (if -quiet is not specified) the 
> progress message for a configuration will be updated approx every 500ms 
> (using carriage returns to move the cursor on the display to the 
> beginning of the current line to enable the progress message to be 
> updated.  Mutually exclusive with the -noninteractive parameter.
>
The current default for startup.sh is a background (start) session.  I 
assume this should also default to noninteractive output.  And when 
foreground  (run) is specified  sessions should default to interactive.

I guess there will be cases when the behavior will be overridden with 
the new interactive/non-interactive keywords though expect most users 
will use the setting associated with foreground/background for unix 
systems.

> -noninteractive
>        Specify this when output is being redirected to a file or 
> printer.  During startup, a new message (each message on a new line) 
> will be issued during different stages startup. Mutually exclusive with 
> the -interactive parameter.
> 
> The above option could also be stored in case in the future we want to 
> enhance shutdown processing to show some progress messages.
> 
> The startup.sh script would pass -noninteractive if the process is 
> started in the background.
> 
> [5]. New method on StartupMonitor interface
> 
> A new method setInteractive(boolean b) could be added to the 
> StartupMonitor interface and invoked by the Daemon class before the 
> systemStarted(kernel) method is called.
> 
> Comments?

Thanks for following up and enhancing these patches!

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John
> 
> Dave Colasurdo wrote:
> 
>> Have attached the patches for both unix (.sh) and windows (.bat) 
>> environments to GERONIMO-1166. Please test them out..
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Dave-
>>
>>
>> Dave Colasurdo wrote:
>>
>>> I've opened a JIRA for this issue and created a patch for the windows 
>>> platform.  Still investigating the unix environment...
>>>
>>>  http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1166
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John Sisson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>
>>>> I don't think I had any objections to making the startup scripts 
>>>> follow Tomcat as much as possible.  See the following discussions on 
>>>> scripts, I think there were a number of issues discussed that we 
>>>> need to cover:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg05926.html
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg05851.html
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg06483.html
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dave Colasurdo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave Colasurdo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The shutdown scripts are a step forward in usability over 
>>>>>>> manually killing the java process via CTL-C.  While quite simple,

>>>>>>> CTL-C does not seem very user friendly and should not be the

>>>>>>> default mechanism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I really don't believe there is a default mechanism, IMHO.  I 
>>>>>> think we are offering multiple ways to do the same thing.  The 
>>>>>> CTRL-C would be heavily used by developers.  The shutdown script

>>>>>> could be used by people using a daemon or backgrounding the server

>>>>>> (which is easily done on both Windows and *nix systems) or a 
>>>>>> remote server.  The console would/maybe be used by mouse-clicking

>>>>>> administrators.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would surely hope that in a prod environment one is not running

>>>>>> the server in a terminal window ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, it does seem strange that a user needs to open a new

>>>>>>> window to shutdown the server.   Seems like the initial startup

>>>>>>> command should return the  command prompt back to the user so

>>>>>>> that shutdown can be issued from the same window.  One way to

>>>>>>> accomplish this is to have the startup script launch a new window

>>>>>>> that controls the java process (and output the startup messages)

>>>>>>> while the initial prompt is returned to the user.  This would

>>>>>>> allow the shutdown to be issued from the initial window.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For a developer (and me being selfish), running in a terminal 
>>>>>> window is not strange and it seems to be the norm from a command

>>>>>> line perspective, rather than the exception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO, ss a developer, sending the server into the background is 
>>>>>> not appealing.  I think if one wants control over their terminal,

>>>>>> they could issue a startup.sh& (notice the ampersand) to 
>>>>>> background the process. Quite possibly we could also add another

>>>>>> script called startup_background.sh (or bat) that could so this as

>>>>>> well.   We could also create daemon scripts for the different 
>>>>>> platforms.  Wasn't there a JIRA issue for an NT Service for 
>>>>>> Windows?  We could add init.d scripts for Unix too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree the current behavior is appropriate for a developer.  I was 
>>>>> thinking more about end users. Similar to your suggestion, should 
>>>>> we consider adding an option to the startup.sh|bat script to put 
>>>>> the process in background?  Actually, I'm wondering if the default 
>>>>> behavior (startup.sh|bat w/o any options) should be geared toward 
>>>>> end users and would run the process in background.  And specifying 
>>>>> the option (-foreground) would allow the process to be run in the 
>>>>> current window for developers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, windows service and init.d are also useful.  I think 
>>>>> both proposals are worth pursuing
>>>>>
>>>>> Will look to see if there are current JIRAs open on these..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, if we ever support sharing one binary installation that
can 
>>>>>>> start multiple instances of geronimo (each with it's own unique

>>>>>>> configuration) then we will also likely need this behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Dave-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message