karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Subject Re: feature names are potentially ambiguous?
Date Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:43:47 GMT

On Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:57:59 AM Ioannis Canellos wrote:
> Though I liked the idea of symbolic-name like features a lot, I somehow do
> not like the result.

I agree.   I really don't like it either.    I'd much prefer something 
shorter, but still unique:


Still points at karaf, but is relatively small and doesn't clutter things up 
terribly.   The whole "org.apache." part is terribly redundant.   But that's 
my opinion.  :-)


> What I do not like is that a lot of things have become unreadable and the
> new feature names require way more effort to use.
> Some examples:
> *a) org.apache.karaf.features.cfg*
> featuresBoot=org.apache.karaf.features.standard.config,org.apache.karaf.feat
> ures.standard.ssh,org.apache.karaf.features.standard.management,org.apache.k
> araf.features.standard.config,org.apache.karaf.features.standard.ssh,org.apa
> che.karaf.features.standard.management,org.apache.karaf.features.standard.
> This has become somehow unreadable. There are a lot of dots and commas and
> you can easily spot where a feature name starts and where it ends. This is a
> bit painfull to read.
> *b) The package like format doesn't suit well to our code completion*
> If I want to install the war feature, I have to press <TAB> for code
> completion* 4* times:
> o (choices are obr and org)
> org. (choice are ops4j and apache)
> org.apache.karaf.features (choices are standard and enterprise)
> org.apache.karaf.features.standard (lot of choices)
> Moreover the hints on each code completion are too long that I need to put
> extra effort to understand my possible choices.
> *b) The output of the features:list is somehow unreadable*
> Really long lines which actually all repeat the same information.
> I actually have to maximize my terminal to be able to read it.
> *
> *
> *d) A feature descriptor*
>     <feature name="org.apache.karaf.features.standard.spring.dm.web"
> description="Spring DM Web support" version="${spring.osgi.version}"
> resolver="(obr)">
>     <feature version="${spring.osgi.version}">
> org.apache.karaf.features.standard.spring.dm</feature>
>     <feature
> version="[2.5.6,4)">org.apache.karaf.features.standard.spring.web</feature>
>     <feature
> version="${project.version}">org.apache.karaf.features.standard.http</featur
> e> <bundle
> start-level="30">mvn:org.springframework.osgi/spring-osgi-web/${spring.osgi.
> version}</bundle> </feature>
> *e) The new naming increases entropy.*
> I am not sure If I expressed that right, so I will use an example. In the
> karaf context when someone used to see the following string *camel-jms *he
> could directly correlate the string to a feature (or an artifactId).
> With the new naming the string *org.apache.camel.jms *can be anything: a) a
> package name, b) a symbolic name, c) a groupId/artifactId d) a repository id
> (standard repository ids are now using the same naming).
> Feature elements look a lot like bundle elements and its not that friendly
> to read.
> The main goal of this email is point to share my concern about the
> user-friendliness of the "symbolic-name like features".
> I would like to hear your views first, before start thinking of
> alternatives.
> Thanks for having the patience to go through all of it :)
Daniel Kulp
Talend - http://www.talend.com

View raw message