karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Baptiste Onofré ...@nanthrax.net>
Subject Re: feature names are potentially ambiguous?
Date Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:53:14 GMT
Hi Ioannis,

I second you on that.

I agreed to use a full qualified feature name, but I don't like the 
result as well.
FYI, to avoid to loose users, I created features name aliases.

I think we should revert the name (I will do it if all are agree). If, 
as David said, some feature name are ambiguous (for instance jndi), I 
have no problem to change to more descriptive name (for instance, 
aries-jndi-service or whatever).

+1 to revert the feature full qualified name usage (I will take care of 


On 10/13/2011 12:57 AM, Ioannis Canellos wrote:
> Though I liked the idea of symbolic-name like features a lot, I somehow do
> not like the result.
> 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.features.standard.ssh,org.apache.karaf.features.standard.management,org.apache.karaf.features.standard.config,org.apache.karaf.features.standard.ssh,org.apache.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="${project.version}">org.apache.karaf.features.standard.http</feature>
> <bundle
> start-level="30">mvn:org.springframework.osgi/spring-osgi-web/${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 :)

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Talend - http://www.talend.com

View raw message