Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 200 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2006 20:36:40 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Mar 2006 20:36:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 29962 invoked by uid 500); 27 Mar 2006 20:36:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 29863 invoked by uid 500); 27 Mar 2006 20:36:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 29840 invoked by uid 99); 27 Mar 2006 20:36:34 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:36:34 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of david.blevins@visi.com designates 208.42.156.2 as permitted sender) Received: from [208.42.156.2] (HELO conn.mc.mpls.visi.com) (208.42.156.2) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:36:33 -0800 Received: from [192.168.42.19] (68-171-56-105.vnnyca.adelphia.net [68.171.56.105]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by conn.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3825482FA; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:36:12 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <2FFB76BB-6995-4104-8AE5-84DC4820675F@iq80.com> References: <74e15baa0603241654g5180f277ob443c193dcc62208@mail.gmail.com> <2FFB76BB-6995-4104-8AE5-84DC4820675F@iq80.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <1731BD1E-63A4-4147-9D73-7D1EEA41DDB7@visi.com> Cc: user@geronimo.apache.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: David Blevins Subject: Re: Deploy Tool: deploy vs redeploy Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:36:05 -0800 To: dev@geronimo.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N That seems reasonable to me. On Mar 27, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > +1 > > -dain > > On Mar 24, 2006, at 4:54 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote: > >> Currently if you use the command-line deploy tool, you have to >> specify >> different deploy commands depending on whether the module is already >> deployed. That is, you use "deploy" the first time, and "redeploy" >> thereafter: >> >> java -jar bin/deployer.jar deploy foo.war >> java -jar bin/deployer.jar deploy foo.war <-- fails, already >> deployed >> java -jar bin/deployer.jar redeploy foo.war >> java -jar bin/deployer.jar undeploy foo.war >> java -jar bin/deployer.jar redeploy foo.war <-- fails, not deployed >> >> After using this a bit, I'd lean toward combining these into one >> command where the deploy tool will deploy the app if it's not already >> running, and redeploy it if it is already running. >> >> Any objections to that? I wonder if there are real-world cases where >> you'd rather get the error if the deployment state isn't what you'd >> expect. On the other hand, that seems seriously outweighed by the >> number of times I up-arrow and repeat the previous command and it >> gives an error because it's already deployed or whatever. At this >> point, I think making things easier during development ought to be >> the >> higher priority. >> >> Thanks, >> Aaron >