RE: [coLinux-devel] TO-DOs for Release

[Daniel S. <dan...@ya...>]

I agree completely - removing the XML config file and replacing it with
command line arguments seems like a step backwards. Dealing with long
command lines is very cumbersome and error prone.

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: col...@li... [mailto:colinux-devel-
> ad...@li...] On Behalf Of Leeuw van der, Tim
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:38 AM
> To: gboutwel; da...@co...
> Cc: col...@li...
> Subject: RE: [coLinux-devel] TO-DOs for Release
> 
> I would seriously re-consider that idea to drop config-files. On windows,
> you cannot pass command-line arguments longer than 4000 characters. And
> I've ran into that limit with other software.
> If you build up an extensive config for coLinux, I'm very sure that ppl
> will run into that limit with coLinux too.
> 
> Also, I've found it to be very, very, very unmanageable, to start programs
> with very long command lines. If only because your average editor doesn't
> always handle things the right way and often breaks lines in the wrong
> place -- or because your preference is not to show lines with linewrap by
> default.
> 
> For me, config-files make things much more accesible, manageable. And they
> can more easily be taken from one platform to the next.
> 
> Anyways, just my 2cents.
> 
> --Tim
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: col...@li... [mailto:colinux-devel-
> ad...@li...]On Behalf Of gboutwel
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:39 AM
> To: da...@co...
> Cc: col...@li...
> Subject: Re: [coLinux-devel] TO-DOs for Release
> 
> 
> da...@co... wrote:
> 
> > I've been busy lately spawning collaboration concerning plans
> 
> 
> > for a new OSS project, this explains my recent tendency of
> not
> 
> >
> 
> > committing changes to the repository. However, I'm still reading
> 
> > the posted patches and I hope to merge them soon.
> 
> 
> 
> Understand.  I've been releasing version after version of application
> for work and so I've been swamped with those and not had the
> time for coLinux that I'd like.
> 
> 
> 
> > We have several outstanding issues:
> 
> >
> 
> >  * Service support. First we need to make sure it works with
> the
> 
> > command line configuration without a problem. I've also received
> 
> > reports about problems such as the service shutting down on
> 
> 
> > user log-out... we need to assure stability with multiply
> 
> > instances, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Service with config file works weel with muliple instances.
> I can vouch for that as I've been running this scenario for sometime.
>  I will make it point to test --remove-service and --install-service
> again.  It's still on my to-do to make services work with command-lines.
> 
> 
> 
> >  * Memory management - either we keep the current algorithm
> if
> 
> > it's good enough for most people (especiallu in terms of stability),
> 
> > or we come up with something different.
> 
> 
> 
> I've got no complaints with either.  As I said earlier I run
> with mutliple instances as services, in addition to running manually
> additional instances from time with 1Gig of RAM and I've seen
> little to no difference between the two methods.  If I had to
> choose stability I'd choose the one that you had before this
> last change as with it as it is now VERY occasionally my services
> don't start-up correctly, other than that I don't see a differnce.
> 
> 
> 
> >  * Support the new stuff in the XML configuration BUT print
> a big
> 
> > warning for whoever uses that configuration that it's going
> to
> 
> > be obsoleted in the next major version (0.7.0).
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a plan.  It the plan to drop configuration files
> all together?  They can be easily supplanted by scripts on linux,
> and batch files on windows, except when dealing with services,
> where they do an an element of flexibility.
> 
> 
> 
> >  * 20041024 still gives problems on AMD64? Need to confirm
> and
> 
> > fix...
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen mixed reports.  I've seen 1 that says pre6 doesn't
> work and pre5 does, but most the reports I've seen are that pre6
> works for them when other wheren't working.
> 
> 
> 
> > p.s. I'm planning a 0.7.0 to fork straight out of 0.6.2 when
> it
> 
> > gets released. This means that we will be starting with the
> 
> 
> > development-tree and stable-tree development model.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  I was wondering if we'd reached the point when this was
> needed.  It's starting to seem like it anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> George
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Love the funnies?
> 
> Christian Cartoons at Praize
> 
> http://www.praize.com/cartoons/
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/
> _______________________________________________
> coLinux-devel mailing list
> coL...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/colinux-devel
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/
> _______________________________________________
> coLinux-devel mailing list
> coL...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/colinux-devel