karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>
Subject Re: Simpler karaf shell command/action definition
Date Wed, 09 May 2012 15:54:35 GMT
The idea is to use the object from the service only as a prototype. So 
we would retrieve the object from the service and clone it in some way.
If the action is defined in blueprint we could use the blueprint 
prototype support for that.

Perhaps we can even do that without the service publishing. Is it 
possible to react on the blueprint context that is created and check for 
beans of type action?
That would make the syntax even simpler as we then only have the bean 
definition.

Perhaps the cleanest way would be to use:

<actions xmlns="...">
<bean class="MyAction>
</bean>
</actions>

So we would use a BP namespace but inside use plain beans which people 
understand easily. As the beans would be inlined I think they would even 
default to prototype scope. Honestly this is not too far from what we 
have now...

Btw. Is it possible to use a bean as a kind of template like in spring? 
We have many cases where many commands need the same injections and 
currently we have to define the injects for each bean.

Christian

Am 09.05.2012 17:24, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
> Second point, the action is purposely not published as an OSGi service
> because it would have a big incompatible consequence, which is that the
> action would have to be stateless and thread safe.  Given the action
> parameters are injected when the action is created, I don't really see how
> it could be done.
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Christian Schneider<chris@die-schneider.net
>> wrote:
>> We currently either use the blueprint namespace or the AbstractCommand and
>> a service definition to define commands. This has some shortcomings:
>> - The blueprint namespace definition is a bit verbose and at first I did
>> not understand that actions in the xml can be injected like beans
>> Example:
>>
>>     <command-bundle xmlns="http://karaf.apache.**org/xmlns/shell/v1.1.0<http://karaf.apache.org/xmlns/shell/v1.1.0>
>> ">
>>         <command>
>>              <action class="org.apache.karaf.shell.**
>> commands.impl.WatchAction">
>>                 <property name="commandProcessor" ref="commandProcessor"/>
>>             </action>
>>             <completers>
>>                 <ref component-id="**commandCompleter" />
>>                 <null/>
>>             </completers>
>>         </command>
>>     </command-bundle>
>>
>> - The other way using AbstractCommand and a service def is even more
>> verbose and exposes a lot of implementation details like the
>> DefaultActionPreparator
>>
>> <bean id="commandCompleter" class="org.apache.karaf.shell.**
>> console.completer.**CommandsCompleter"/>
>>     <service>
>>         <interfaces>
>>             <value>org.apache.felix.**service.command.Function</**value>
>>             <value>org.apache.karaf.shell.**console.CompletableFunction</**
>> value>
>>         </interfaces>
>>         <service-properties>
>>             <entry key="osgi.command.scope" value="*"/>
>>             <entry key="osgi.command.function" value="help"/>
>>         </service-properties>
>>         <bean class="org.apache.karaf.shell.**console.commands.**
>> BlueprintCommand">
>>             <property name="blueprintContainer" ref="blueprintContainer"/>
>>             <property name="blueprintConverter" ref="blueprintConverter"/>
>>             <property name="actionId" value="help"/>
>>             <property name="completers">
>>                 <list>
>>                     <bean class="org.apache.karaf.shell.**
>> console.completer.**CommandNamesCompleter"/>
>>                 </list>
>>             </property>
>>         </bean>
>>     </service>
>>
>>     <bean id="help" class="org.apache.karaf.shell.**help.impl.HelpAction"
>> activation="lazy" scope="prototype">
>>         <property name="provider" ref="helpSystem"/>
>>     </bean>
>>
>>
>> So here is what I propose:
>>
>> The first thing is to add a complerers property to the @Commands
>> annotation. This is the last bit we need to make sure the annotations
>> provide all metadata of an action.
>> Then the idea is to simply define the action as a blueprint bean and
>> publish it as an OSGi service. We then have an extender that adapts these
>> to the felix gogo commands.
>>
>> So the blueprint code for the help example above would look like:
>> <service interface="org.apache.karaf.**shell.commands.Action">
>> <bean id="help" class="org.apache.karaf.shell.**help.impl.HelpAction"
>> activation="lazy" scope="prototype">
>> <property name="provider" ref="helpSystem"/>
>> </bean>
>> </service>
>>
>> With the upcoming blueprint annotations we could simply annotate the
>> Action class and need no blueprint code at all. The above style would also
>> work much better with declarative services. If you look at the scr module
>> in karaf you see how complicated it is till now to create a command in ds.
>>
>> One problem with the aproach is of course that the Action has to be
>> created per execution. So we need to find a good way to clone the Action
>> object. To a degree this problem is already present int the current
>> solution.
>>
>> So what are the advantages:
>> - The user code only depends on some very few interfaces like Action and
>> the annotations. AbstractCommand and similar are not needed anymore and the
>> impls can be private
>> - The blueprint syntax is quite concise and does not need a special
>> namespace
>> - Using BP annotations the syntax is even more concise as no xml is
>> needed. This would not be possible with the current way
>>
>> So what do you think?
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> --
>> Christian Schneider
>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>
>> Open Source Architect
>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>
>>
>


-- 

Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de

Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com


Mime
View raw message