Hmmm....
The lack of a clear definition of 'successful startup' sounds like a
major design issue that needs to be addressed pretty quickly.
I would think that a container init failure is a clear indication that
they server did not start successfully...
The module system is like the starter motor on your car... few people
think that hearing it spin indicates that the car has started
successfully...
vbk
Lloyd L Chambers wrote:
> Peter,
>
> My understanding is that the V3 system is so module-based that failure
> of a particular module doesn't necessarily mean that startup was
> "unsuccessful". In V2, the code "knew" that failure of certain
> containers was fatal (some of the time at least, there are clear bugs
> in that area even in V2).
>
> AFAIK in V3 we currently lack semantics of what "successful startup"
> actually means:
> - there is no "failure is fatal" flag (AFAIK) for a module, and it's
> not clear that we should have such a flag;
> - success could be multi-state: failed, started with errors, started
> cleanly, etc.
>
> Perhaps there should be some kind of pluggable listener service that
> could make the decision as to whether a failure should be considered
> fatal.
>
> Lloyd
>
> On Jun 24, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Peter Williams wrote:
>
>> If I have two default installations of V3 TP2, I can start both of
>> them via "asadmin start-domain". As expected, the first instance is
>> fine. The second one has 3 bind exceptions in the log (shown below)
>> but according to asadmin, start-domain was successful. The second
>> process appears to be running (but is not the recipient of http calls
>> on port 8080 - the first server instance gets those).
>>
>> Bug or Feature?
>>
>> Tail of log for second instance...