From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 30 14:14:41 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F2F16A4CE; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:14:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3471F43D2D; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:14:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mark@markdnet.demon.co.uk) Received: from lizacnet.demon.co.uk ([80.177.208.105] helo=[192.168.0.2]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1B8RVI-000FfP-0W; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:14:40 +0100 From: Mark Dixon To: freensd-ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-java@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:16:19 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1 References: <20040330123932.R1592@lizacnet.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_5GfaACJvxviRwSu"; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200403302316.25052.mark@markdnet.demon.co.uk> cc: Dag-Erling =?utf-8?q?Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= Subject: Re: tomcat, JBoss etc. Should be headless? X-BeenThere: freebsd-java@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting Java to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 22:14:41 -0000 --Boundary-02=_5GfaACJvxviRwSu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 30 Mar 2004 18:40, you wrote: > Jan Grant writes: > > On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote: > > > Mark Dixon writes: > > > > Given that these server type java ports run as daemon processes in > > > > the backgroundm wouldn't it be wise to start them up with > > > > -Djava.awt.headless=3Dtrue set? > > > > > > What exactly would be the point? > > > > The AWT canvas & related classes are (supposedly) available for the > > dynamic generation of graphics, without needing an X server somewhere. > > In that case, isn't the onus on the application developer to make sure > at runtime that awt knows to run headless? > > DES Yes, that is true to some extent, but.. In the current situation, taking tomcat as an example, the JVM starts up wi= th=20 daemonctl from /usr/local/etc/rc.d into an environment with no X server,=20 provided there's been no editing of the scripts. Any attempt to use the=20 graphics libraries in any servlet will result in the servlet falling over=20 with an AWTError. If we switch to headless, this would not be the case. I really don't see any cost to anyone in doing this, and it makes more JVM= =20 functionality avalaible by default to those that want it. The only people=20 that may be hurt by this are those that have created a custom startup scrip= t=20 which kicks off an X server (virtual or otherwise) for use by the JVM. =2D-=20 Mark 'If it compiles, ship it' --Boundary-02=_5GfaACJvxviRwSu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBAafG4LqgJ90OcaiARAnL8AKC4kMkX0ahx0YB75QioaFoIvDst7gCg7cXv /4R9PSZplpIWcDeYwiZWqjo= =O+vW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_5GfaACJvxviRwSu--