On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Mladen Turk wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Mladen Turk wrote: > > > > We already have a mechanism/API for shutdown - and I don't > > see any good reason to add another one for the JNI call. The > > fewer 'special' APIs we have for JNI, the better it is for > > maintainance. > > > > Yes, but It doesn't work, at least I wasn't been able to invoke it. > And it isn't API, it just calls the TomcatStarter with the stop param, > and the change of ARG init param, enables that 'stop' to be customizable > (if its gonna be changed someday).
I was thinking that 'stop' should be done by sending the ajp13 stop message, instead of calling main(). worker.jni should just execute a program by calling static main(String args[]). What about having a separate worker.jni: that will execute the stop command ? In theory we can have as many worker.jni we want, each executing different programs - in this case we'll just add a flag to the worker.jni indicating when do we want the program executed ( on start, on stop - maybe on other stages too ). This would still keep the worker.jni: as a simple run-java-program-and-nothing-else, and we could open some interesting tricks. > > What I would do is just use the existing ajp13 shutdown. If > > there's anything the TomcatStarter must do on shutdown, we > > can add another hook (== coyote ActionCode ) for shutdown, > > but use the normal callback mechansim from JNI ( with the > > ajp13 shutdown message ). > > > > We still need to destroy the jvm on shutdown, and since we are using the > TomcatStarter for starting I'm pretty much in favor for using it for > shutdown too, cause that's our application entry point when used > inprocess. Not sure about that - I would like to keep TomcatStarter as simple as possible. I don't agree that the same class that starts a program should also stop it - we don't do it in standalone case ( where the stopper sends a message to either ajp12/13 in 3.3, or the 8005 port in catalina - but that's different code than the starter code ). As allways, if adding a stop solves your problem - I'm +0, but I don't think this is the best solution, and long term I would like very much to have the stop done via the same code regardless of execution mode. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
