karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Achim Nierbeck <bcanh...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Telling whether startup is really complete
Date Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:09:36 GMT
Christian,

I'm sorry but I don't see any agreement on delay beeing the better
option, or beeing the default.
If you think it's ok to have the delay for your customers I'm fine if
you apply it to your custom distribution.
I'm also fine with opening a way to tell the shell how long it should
wait. I'm also fine to keep the "locked" shell
in Karaf for people to use for their own distribution.
So I'm +1 for the sum-up of Ioannis.

@Johan
how about a "Karaf started in MM:SS" in log :-D

regards, Achim

2012/8/9 Christian Schneider <chris@die-schneider.net>:
> I mostly agree besides for the default. I think we all agree that the
> delayed start of the console is the better option for beginners while
> a lot of karaf developers like the console that starts directly.
>
> For this reason I think we should have the delayed start as default for two
> reasons:
> 1. We are only a handfull of developers while there are thousands of users
> and most are beginners or at least do not have a deep understanding of
> karaf.
> 2. The delayed start is a nice out of the box experience for people who
> start karaf for the first time. Especially the beginners will not find the
> option to turn this on easily
>
> Christian
>
> Am 09.08.2012 19:40, schrieb Ioannis Canellos:
>
>> I've read a lot of interesting opinions and I'd like to share mine:
>>
>> i) The Karaf shell should start asap, unless explicitly configured. The
>> enter thing is nice but should be optional imho.
>> ii) Determining when Karaf is started is one thing, determining when an
>> application is started is another.
>> iii) A log entry that says Karaf has started sounds enough, we can
>> optionally provide that info through the info command.
>> iv) Different users have different needs on what started means. To cover
>> all cases we could allow the user to use a configuration file that will
>> contain requirements (package, service etc) and have everyone configure it
>> however he wishes.
>>
>
>
> --
>  Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>



-- 

Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/>
Committer & Project Lead
OPS4J Pax for Vaadin
<http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home> Commiter & Project
Lead
blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>

Mime
View raw message