geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <>
Subject Re: Lets use gshell for all startup stuff
Date Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:47:44 GMT
Good points, but if we never make the switch and force everyone to use 
GShell, these problems will never get resolved....


Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Here are my thoughts on the switch to GShell:
> -1 for, and - the GShell alternatives start two
> separate java processes: one for GShell env. and one for the server or
> client container. That's unnecessary in most cases and slower.
> -1 for - it's nice and small. No need for the entire
> GShell env. just to stop the server.
> +1 for - but only if 1) support for offline deployment is
> added, and 2) Windows paths are supported nicely (this might have been
> fixed already)
> +1 for - but but only if Windows paths are supported nicely.
> In general, I would view GShell as another plugin to Geronimo so IMHO
> it shouldn't be the main way to start/stop/deploy to Geronimo and it
> shouldn't be part of the geronimo-boilerplate assembly. However, if we
> are adding new functionality to Geronimo that needs CLI interface,
> that should be written as a GShell command.
> Also, things like Control-C on server started via start-server on
> Windows should be fixed before switching. To be more useful for
> Geronimo users, GShell should have better scripting capabilities
> (conditionals, loops, etc.) and we should write more and/or more
> interesting commands.
> Jarek
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:46 PM, David Jencks <> wrote:
>> Lets change the scripts in bin that don't use gshell to use gshell.
>> Then the helper scripts such as will only be used for starting
>> gshell and I hopefully they won't need most of their current contents.
>> As noted in GERONIMO-4093 I'm not OK with requiring JAVA_HOME to be defined
>> on systems that don't need it, and I took matters into my own hands and
>> restored the old behavior of using "java" if JAVA_HOME is not defined.  I'm
>> barely literate in bash so there may well be a better solution.
>> thanks
>> david jencks

View raw message