karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>
Subject Re: Add a scope feature-url
Date Fri, 25 May 2012 15:11:01 GMT
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.


> 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

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message