commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niklas Gustavsson <>
Subject Re: [exec] design goals, API sketch, etc.. next step?
Date Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:56:00 GMT
jerome lacoste wrote:
>     Niklas, Brett, Trygve & all,
> So here's what I propose to do:
> - decide which requirements are important. What is the problem we are
> trying to solve? How do we position us compared to the official's API?
> etc... Someone using SDK 1.4 or 1.5 should find a compelling reason to
> migrate to commons-exec. The migration should be intuitive. Benefits
> for migrating clear. I think I exposed my ideas in the thread about
> the library's vision.

Agreed, lets got through the requirements gathered so far (these are 
more of less copied from your's and Bretts email with some additions by 

* Provide an equivalent to ProcessBuilder working in older JREs
* Process and Stream management, allowing flexible reuse of this 
* be able to run an external command in a small number of lines,
capturing or streaming output and pass in my own input handler. Have it
actually work on Windows and Unix et al when there are quotes, spaces,
etc in the binary, arguments, etc.
* be able to run a process in the background, find out when it finished,
kill it if necessary.
* wire it up in an IoC container so I can do even less code to configure
* Provide an API for retrieving the current environment

Would you like anything else in there?

I think those listed above are covered by the current code, albeit 
behind an ugly API.

> - we compare the clean API sketch to the refactoring I made in
> September. We focus on making this API easy to use and remember
> without compromise on flexibility.

Agreed, I will check out your refactoring next.

> - we then take a decision on how to reach an implementation that
> satisfies this API (Either start from the API sketch, or from the
> refactorings I made 4 months ago).
> I don't care on the approach as long as we get things moving and that
> efforts are not wasted.
> Niklas you said you could coordinate. I offered my help for coding,
> documentation and tests. There's already a lot of work done on that.
> Who else is interested? How do we proceed? Niklas I let you answer
> those questions.

Yeap, I'll try my best to coordinate the efforts. First of all, I would 
like us to agree on the initial requirements. From what I gather, I 
think our basic requirements are very similar so I don't expect this to 
be any problem.

I will also have a look at the refactoring you've made and get back with 
comments on that tomorrow.

> Let's try not to loose the momentum. I just don't want my efforts to
> be wasted (so far they haven't been productive enough to my taste). 


> I
> would really like this library to be in early alpha by end of
> February. So I can get it off the list of things I said I would do.

I think that is a reasonable goal.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message