[Glass] Fwd: GEMSTONE_EXE_CONF higher priority than topaz -e argument ?

[Dale Henrichs via Glass]

Mariano, is using both GEMSTONE_EXE_CONF and `-e` and claims that
the GEM_TEMPOBJ_CACHE_SIZE that is printed in the header file comes from
`-e` but that "the gem was actually being executed with the
 GEM_TEMPOBJ_CACHE_SIZE of GEMSTONE_EXE_CONF" ... At this point I don't
have the conf files in question nor do I have the header information and I
think he is using 3.1.0.6, but I will be asking for that informatino.

But I am curious as which declaration has higher precedence between
GEMSTONE_EXE_CONF and `-e` ...

Dale

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mariano Martinez Peck via Glass <glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:25 AM
Subject: [Glass] GEMSTONE_EXE_CONF higher priority than topaz -e argument ?
To: "glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com" <glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com>


Hi guys,

I found a problem now..which I don't know why I didn't have before...

For all my stones and gems, I source an "env" file. So...for everytime I
was running topaz, I had this variable exported:

export GEMSTONE_EXE_CONF=/path/to/general/gem/file/gem.conf

And then, my seaside gems start this way:

cat << EOF | nohup $GEMSTONE/bin/topaz -l -e $4 -I
$APPLICATION_DIR/.topazini 2>&1 >>
$APPLICATION_LOG_DIR/${1}_server-${2}.log &
......

Note the "-e $4" which is the full path to a configuration file which is
similar to what you have in /opt/gemstone/product/seaside/etc/seaside3.conf

The problem was that I was defining GEM_TEMPOBJ_CACHE_SIZE in both files,
the one pointed out from GEMSTONE_EXE_CONF and the one passed to topaz via
-e.
In my logs of the gen session opened from topaz, I did notice that the
 GEM_TEMPOBJ_CACHE_SIZE was printed correctly (the one set in the file sent
via -e). However....that was not happening...the gem was actually being
executed with the  GEM_TEMPOBJ_CACHE_SIZE of GEMSTONE_EXE_CONF.

So...my first question is... is it expected that GEMSTONE_EXE_CONF has
precedence or higher priority than what I send via -e to topaz?

If true...then shouldn't the topaz session log tell me the
 GEM_TEMPOBJ_CACHE_SIZE it will really use?

thanks in advance

-- 
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

_______________________________________________
Glass mailing list
Glass at lists.gemtalksystems.com
http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/listinfo/glass
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gemtalksystems.com/mailman/private/glass/attachments/20140922/0147a3c3/attachment.html>