karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Achim Nierbeck <bcanh...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Add a scope feature-url
Date Fri, 25 May 2012 15:18:04 GMT
I see this as a valid show-stopper.
To give this some more weight, here's my official -1 for this idea!


2012/5/25 Chris Geer <chris@cxtsoftware.com>:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Christian Schneider <
> chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>> I looked into the feature commands a little deeper and I think I can do
>> more than just changing the scope.
>> See https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/KARAF-1502<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-1502>
>> I already did some of the implementation and I think it looks much better
>> than what we have now.
>> If the command names are going to be changing will there at least be alias
> matching the existing commands by default, or easily enabled? I tend to
> agree that the changes are minor enough for a human to figure out but we
> tend to do a decent amount of scripting that uses these commands so
> changing them will require a decent amount of rework on our part. It's not
> the end of the world but aliases would at least cause this change to be
> relatively non-breaking (unless the arguments are changing too) until we
> got a chance to update all our scripts.
> Chris
>> Christian
>> Am 22.05.2012 21:21, schrieb Ioannis Canellos:
>>> In terms of completion this would make a difference. However, it is
>>> lacking
>>> context in my opinion.
>>> For example when a user sees the repo scope, he can be easily get confused
>>> and think that this refers to maven repos etc.
>>> Generally, speaking we need to be careful regarding the commands scope.
>>> If the scope is too generic, then it will gather a lot of commands under
>>> it
>>> and in the it will loose its purpose (such case were the osgi commands,
>>> they used to be an umbrella for many different things).
>>> On the other hand, if we normalize scopes too much and start
>>> splitting concepts across different scopes. the number of scope will be
>>> hard for the users to follow. Moreover, it will weaken the sub
>>> shells concept (there will be not much use to enter a subshells with only
>>> just a couple of commands).
>>> The key here is balance. I feel the currently the features scope is well
>>> balance and I think we should leave them as they are.
>> --
>> Christian Schneider
>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>> Open Source Architect
>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com


Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/>
Committer & Project Lead
OPS4J Pax for Vaadin
<http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home> Commiter & Project
blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>

View raw message