I thought that the plan of record is till we find the correct default value
for --force, it remains true. This was after ccc meeting yesterday.
Thus, asadmin deploy foo.war [foodir] followed by asadmin deploy foo.war
[foodir] should result in redeployment of the underlying application/module.
This means, we should not use "redeploy" command just yet, as "deploy
over deploy" is supposed to achieve the same effect.
I am not convinced we ought to have a "redeploy" command.
Jerome, Bill, please help clarify doubts here.
- Kedar
Vince Kraemer wrote:
> This is good news. I am happy that this useful command is getting a
> second chance.... for users sake.
>
> The v3 plugin code could be changed to work with just about anything.
> It isn't pleasant, but it is do-able.
>
> Forcing users to go back to a poorer interface, after a better one has
> been identified and implemented, is.... more than unpleasant.
>
> vbk
>
> Hong Zhang wrote:
>> Hi, Vince
>>
>>> I disagree with your analysis.
>>>
>>> I think that whether by luck or deep analysis, Jerome made the right
>>> decisions concerning the need for a redeploy "command".
>>>
>>> Eliminating it for 'ease of maintenance' is not a compelling
>>> justification.... especially when there was a working implementation
>>> that was in-place....
>>
>> When we made the decision, we were not aware of that the NetBeans plug
>> in was using the new redeploy command. And I guess we did not realize
>> the parameter differences of the new redeploy command vs the old
>> "deploy --force". In any case, we will restore the old syntax of
>> redeploy command and the changes should be checked in soon.
>>
>> - Hong
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>