[jboss-as7-dev] Domain mode server launch command

[John O'Hara]

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:
>>
>