I have an initial attempt at pulling this together;
https://github.com/johnaoahra80/jboss-as/commits/launchCommand
A couple of things that I would be grateful for some guidance on is;
1 - I have created a PREFIX attribute for the Host Server model in the
host controller. The xml parser populates this attribute with any
commands defined in <launch-command prefix="numactl --membind 1
--cpubind 1"/>. Is this an acceptable/standard way of modifying the
model for a host server?
2 - I have imported
org.jboss.as.host.controller.HostControllerLogger.ROOT_LOGGER into
ModelCombiner.java so that I can log an INFO message if a launch command
prefix has been defined. Is there a better place to log the message?
3 - I have created a new info message in ModelCombiner.java,
serverLaunchCommandPrefix, with id = 11990. This is an arbitrary id, are
there any standards for assigning id's to messages?
John
On 08/14/2012 07:14 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
Then how about this:
<launch-command prefix="numactl --membind 1 --cpubind 1"/>
If we ever find a use case for a suffix, we just add the attribute.
On 8/14/12 12:28 PM, John O'Hara wrote:
> I think the launch-command-prefix is probably more suitable, as
> ModelCombiner already does a good job at defining which java command to run.
>
> atm I can not think of a use case for a launch-command-suffix element
>
> re [1] - I noticed this up after I sent the email
>
> On 08/14/2012 06:03 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>> That's along the lines of what I was thinking for the "different user
>> account" case.
>>
>> Something to think about is whether "java" should be in the
>> launch-command[1] value (with a default value of just "java".) If not
>> it's really a launch-command-prefix, and then is there a use case for
>> launch-command-suffix?
>>
>> I think using a separate child element for this instead of an attribute
>> is better.
>>
>> Another question is whether it makes sense to allow this to be
>> configured at the server-group level, with servers by default inheriting
>> that config. My vote is "no." KISS. If there is demand for doing it at
>> the server-group level, we'll here about it and can add it later.
>>
>> As for validation, I doubt we can do much there. I think this would be
>> an advanced feature where users are going to have to be careful and test
>> things.
>>
>> [1] Note our schema uses lower case names with "-" as a separator, not
>> camel case. So "launch-command" not "launchCommand".
>>
>> On 8/14/12 11:49 AM, John O'Hara wrote:
>