I was mislead by the name of the commands which are (almost) the same as Framework interface methods in the spec so somehow missed the fact that console bundle should be shut down as well. Also “init” works pretty well J
Thanks for the explanation, I was just curious since this is reproducible from the very beginning of equinox.
I agree that there’s no need to open a bug on that having in mind Lazar’s contribution.
Kind regards,
Katya
From: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Watson
Sent: lundi 26 septembre 2011 15:41
To: Equinox development mailing list
Subject: Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox relaunch
To be clear, the shutdown -> init -> launch commands are not spec'ed. They are equinox console commands of which init -> launch are only possible because the console is currently built into Equinox. Once we refactor the console out into a separate bundle, shutting down the framework will also shutdown the console and leave you with a shutdown framework and now way to relaunch it unless you have a launcher that will do it somehow.
But you question is still valid. In my opinion the start level should be set back to 1 after running the launch command (or to the beginning start level configuration option). From command line you can set this with the command "setfwsl X" with X being the start-level you want the framework set back to. You should probably open a bug to capture this, but I don't think we will be able to do much in the long run since we plan to extract the console out into a separate bundle. This is the work Lazar has been doing in the incubator.
Tom
"Todorova, Katya" ---09/24/2011 08:30:04 AM---Hi guys,
From:
| 
"Todorova, Katya" <katya.todorova@xxxxxxx>
|
To:
|
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
|
Date:
|
09/24/2011 08:30 AM
|
Subject:
|
[equinox-dev] Equinox relaunch
|
Hi guys,
What's the expected behavior of calling consecutively framework shutdown -> init -> launch?
I tried doing it command line and the equinox's final state is "starting" (sl is 0). Shouldn't it be "active" (at sl 1) according to the spec?
Thanks,
Katya
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
