Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:40:50 +0200 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk> Cc: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tomcat, JBoss etc. Should be headless? Message-ID: <xzpy8pi2py5.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0403301821270.19442@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk> (Jan Grant's message of "Tue, 30 Mar 2004 18:23:26 %2B0100 (BST)") References: <20040330123932.R1592@lizacnet.demon.co.uk> <xzpn05y48am.fsf@dwp.des.no> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0403301821270.19442@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk> writes: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote: > > Mark Dixon <mark@markdnet.demon.co.uk> 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 --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpy8pi2py5.fsf>