felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: telnetd discussion
Date Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:08:42 GMT
Hi all,

Thanks for summarizing this up here.

I agree to have the shell-telnetd glue at Felix and I am equally open 
and share the same concerns with respect to telnetd. I think this may 
best be answered by Dieter.


Richard S. Hall schrieb:
> Hey everyone,
> The following is intended as a summary of the recent discussion on 
> telnetd (most of this analysis is from an email Felix Meschberger sent me).
> The following bundles are necessary for remote shell access to Felix:
>   1. Felix' standard shell bundle (i.e., shell bundle).
>   2. Dieter's telnetd bundle (i.e., telnetd bundle).
>   3. Dieter shell-telnetd glue bundle (i.e., glue bundle).
> Dieter also mentioned that the telnetd bundle depended on a commons 
> bundle, but we could easily package this into the telnetd bundle so that 
> it is self-contained (we can help make this happen with the maven bundle 
> plugin).
>  From Felix' analysis, we could simplify creating remote shell access by 
> having the glue bundle inject a dummy configuration into telnetd's 
> ManagedServiceFactory so that the Config Admin dependency could be 
> optional. This all sounds good. (We could even consider embedding the 
> telnetd stuff directly into the glue bundle, but that is another 
> discussion.)
> Given this setup, we can ponder where should the telnetd and glue bundle 
> projects reside? The obvious choices are at the Source Forge telnetd 
> site or at Felix. I think that any combination can be reasonably argued. 
> Here is my personal take...
> I definitely think it makes sense to create a subproject for the glue 
> bundle at Felix, I am less certain about the telnetd bundle itself. 
> While I definitely want to support the telnetd bundle, I am not sure if 
> it really falls into the scope of the Felix project.
> I guess the question is, is telnetd a completely generic telnet 
> implementation that could easily be used outside of OSGi or not? If so, 
> then it seems like it should be separate from Felix. On the other hand, 
> if the implementation is somehow tied to OSGi, then it might make sense 
> to host it at Felix.
> Another possibility is that telnetd is generic, but that it has some 
> sort of wrapper that integrates it into an OSGi environment, then maybe 
> it makes sense to host the wrapper at Felix, keeping the generic library 
> at SF.
> I would definitely like to see this functionality available. My mind is 
> open as to how to achieve it, so what does everyone else think?
> -> richard

View raw message