Assume it is a typo start-xxx versus stop-xxx
On 11/3/2010 11:55 AM, Tom Mueller wrote:
> The decision from the admin iteam meeting yesterday was to make force
> a hidden option for 3.1 (_force). This will facilitate further
> development of the correct behavior in 3.2, which is to have all
> threads either exit for be set as daemon threads. So there will be no
> --force for 3.1. However, there will be a --kill on start-domain and
> start-local-instance which does a forceful termination of the process
> using OS capabilities, i.e., kill -9 on Unix.
>
> Tom
>
>
> On 11/3/2010 1:36 PM, Ken wrote:
>> Ken Cavanaugh wrote:
>>> Byron Nevins wrote:
>>>> Yes - that is how stop-server commands work. Before the --force
>>>> option was 100% ignored. Now it is used. If you set --force to
>>>> false, then the server will not stop. That's because System.exit()
>>>> is not called and your server has non-daemon threads left running -
>>>> so it will never stop.
>>>>
>> So what you are saying is, if a user types "stop-instance --force
>> false", the instance does not stop. Worse, the
>> instance is left in a zombie state (e.g. ORB still runs, but EJBs are
>> undeployed). I don't see that this is a useful
>> behavior to expose to the customer. From our meeting this morning, I
>> think the docs and SQE folks agree with
>> this.
>>
>> I can understand that there might be a desire to have a clean
>> shutdown option (e.g. kill vs. kill -9),
>> but if the clean shutdown doesn't work, we shouldn't support it.
>> It's not clear to me what your
>> plan is for MS7 (and FCS) in GF 3.1, but it seems that either
>> stop-instance --force false should
>> result in useful behavior (at least in a "normal" case), or
>> stop-instance --force false should
>> not be supported. If the --force option is needed for other plans
>> (e.g. backward compatibility or
>> future support), I think --force false should produce a warning and
>> do nothing. Otherwise, the
>> --force option should be removed.
>>
>> Another question is: how should SQE test stop-instance --force
>> false? The current behavior is not
>> well-defined, and cannot be tested.
>>
>> My desire here is simple: avoid situations that confuse the user. If
>> the option is not useful, it
>> should not be supported.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ken.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
--
Byron Nevins - Oracle Corporation
Home: 650-359-1290
Cell: 650-784-4123
Sierra: 209-295-2188