geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jarek Gawor" <>
Subject Re: Lets use gshell for all startup stuff
Date Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:36:19 GMT
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.


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