Hi Marina,
It cannot be the latter; --name must be a required option in redeploy.
The reason you don't want the former is because your previous deployment
may have a different name than the archive/path name. And if you do
"asadmin redeploy <path or filename>", redeploy does not know which
application you are redeploying. Similarly, if you have the same app
deployed with two different names, then redeploy does not know which app
you want to redeploy.
Again, the correct syntax is:
*asadmin redeploy --name <appname> [--virtualservers <viratualservers>]
[--contextroot <contextroot>] [--precompilejsp=false] [<path or filename>]*
where --name is required and <path or filename> is optional.
HTH,
Jane
Marina Vatkina wrote:
> Jane,
>
> can it be either
> asadmin redeploy --name <appname>
>
> with an optional <path or filename> or
>
> asadmin redeploy <path or filename>
>
> with an optional --name <appname>?
>
> thanks,
> -marina
>
> Jane Young wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've reverted the functionality in redeploy command. However, the
>> syntax is a bit different. Instead of name parameter as the
>> operand, --name is now a required option. The syntax is very
>> similiar to deploy command.
>>
>> *asadmin redeploy --name <appname> [--virtualservers
>> <viratualservers>] [--contextroot <contextroot>]
>> [--precompilejsp=false] [<path or filename>]*
>>
>> If path (operand) is not specified and the application is previously
>> deployed from a directory, then path is retrieved from domain.xml.
>> If application is previously deployed from a file, then path is a
>> required parameter/operand.
>>
>> I've also added deploydir command. This command is deprecated in v3,
>> so please use "deploy ... <directory>" instead.
>> The V3AdminCommands
>> <http://wiki.glassfish.java.net/Wiki.jsp?page=V3AdminCommands> page
>> has been updated with these changes/additions.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jane
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>