geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <joe.b...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: GERONIMO-4229
Date Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:57:49 GMT

I agree

Joe

Donald Woods wrote:
> If it is no longer used, then #1 sounds like the right approach.
> 
> 
> -Donald
> 
> 
> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was looking at GERONIMO-4229 today (please see the bug and my
>> comments for details). There is a remaining issue with the
>> GERONIMO_BASE property and what it does. The Java system property that
>> it sets is not used anywhere in the code and therefore that property
>> is useless.  I have a couple of ideas what we can do with it or how to
>> fix it:
>>
>> 1) Totally get rid off GERONIMO_BASE in the shell scripts. It doesn't
>> do anything right now anyway and it just confuses people. People that
>> want to use multiple server instances will need to pass
>> "org.apache.geronimo.server.dir" or "org.apache.geronimo.server.name"
>> property using the GERONIMO_OPTS env. property (as it is documented
>> today).
>>
>> or
>>
>> 2) Keep GERONIMO_BASE but only pass "org.apache.geronimo.server.dir"
>> property (to the java process) if the user has set the GERONIMO_BASE
>> env. property explicitly. That is, do not set GERONIMO_BASE property
>> automatically within the script as it is done now. If it would be
>> automatically set, the "org.apache.geronimo.server.name" property
>> (passed via GERONIMO_OPTS) would always be ignored.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Jarek
>>
> 


Mime
View raw message