felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Karl Pauls" <karlpa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: telnetd discussion
Date Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:48:33 GMT
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Same here.

> I think this may best be answered by Dieter.

I agree.



> Regards
> Felix
> 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

Karl Pauls

View raw message