I was discussing this with other folks on the plugin team... and they
brought up an interesting point that I haven't seen in this
discussion... though I might have missed it...
Since we have a couple different layers... we probably want to have a
layer.. like the asadmin command that is deterministic (pauses until the
server is really ready) and have a lower layer (like the http layer) be
more responsive and less trustworthy...
Folks that are using the http layer would "know" that the api has a
different behavior than asadmin (which would probably leverage the lower
level api...
vbk
Jerome Dochez wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2008, at 9:23 AM, Vince Kraemer wrote:
>
>> It sounds like a bug to me. It seems like list-applications should
>> pause until the server is ready to provide a correct answer [one that
>> is not going to change without the user taking some explicit
>> action... like issuing an 'asadmin deploy' command....
>>
>> That would probably apply to ALL the command... not just
>> list-applications.
>>
> right, I don't think we should make anything special for
> list-applications
>
> in this particular case, I think this is a bug in the implementation
> of list-applications, it should now use the config-api to get the list
> of applications rather than the internal runtime structures we use at
> run time. This was the only solution at the time the command was
> written but since Hong added the domain.xml writing last week, I think
> it's time to switch it to use the config-api which will give the
> correct information all the time. Jane, can you take care of that ?
>
> Now, this debate still has some values.... It is somehow difficult for
> a script to know when the server has finished starting. . We could
> block all asadmin requests until all deployed applications have
> finished loading but that seems like a hammer solution, and even then
> you still need to issue a command to figure out the server is fully
> loaded (and which one, asadmin version ????).
>
>
>> Otherwise, folks that need to do things like automate things using
>> asadmin will have to litter their scripts with sleep calls... and
>> even then, the scripts may fail when moved from machine to machine
>> because of things like processor horsepower...
>>
> no, worse case we would have to add an explicit command to wait for
> server starting sequence completion.
>
> It seems that it could be useful to have a blocking command like :
> asadmin wait-startup-completed
> that would block until the server is fully started and all deployed
> and enabled applications are now capable of answering requests. I
> don't think we have that today...
>
> what do people feel ?
>
> Jerome
>
>> vbk
>>
>> Jane Young wrote:
>>> Hi Anissa,
>>>
>>> Do you still see this issue?
>>> The application is there but it does not get displayed with
>>> list-applications command right after server restart. You need to
>>> wait for a few seconds and try list-applications again and the
>>> deployed applications are displayed.
>>>
>>> Jane
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>