felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig Phillips <lcphill...@praxiseng.com>
Subject RE: telnetd discussion (ordering of bundles)
Date Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:27:39 GMT

Well... it was the order of the bundles within the auto.start.1...  The telnetd.jar or telnetconsole.jar
bundle has to be the first entry (well, for me), ahead of shell and tui... When I put telnetd.jar
/ telnetconsole.jar last, well -- then I get a conflict...

For what it's worth, Craig

From: Craig Phillips
Sent: Thu 6/26/2008 1:10 PM
To: dev@felix.apache.org
Subject: RE: telnetd discussion


I'm experiencing something weird in one newly created workspace/project, which is pretty much
a replica of others...

If I install any of the various telnet bundles, from the one below to the original telnetd
to the one-off I recreated from source, set up a sandbox to run (meaning, bin and bundle and
conf and cache directories and all items thereof), and run felix, here's the odd behavior:

- The bundles all seem to load and resolve, from what I can tell from stdout, almost... (note
I also use SCR)
- Until I hit a keystroke / enter key (such as 'ps'), the services are not promulgated
- At such time I hit a keystroke / enter key, then the services are propagated and telnetd
gets its shell service and SCR gets busy and any play-hello-world bundle I have gets it's
pax logger and away we go
- If I remove shell.tui from the mix ('er, auto.start.1), all the above is not necessary...
the services load, and telnetd (or telnet.console) and my hello-world bundles are all up and
running, services and the like

Now, I don't see this same behavior in other "sandboxes", just a newly created project I just
set up.. all I have is a hello world in it...

Obviously, I'm not asking anyone to diagnose my workspace or anything... All I'm asking is
whether someone has seen this before and if they remember the circumstances and what was the

I'm posting / replying to this thread because I think it is apropos to the discussion -- there
is obviously some sort of shell conflict with the shell.tui bundle, seemingly on the inputStream/outputStream/printStream,
but it's beyond my comprehension ATT...

Trying to narrow down the difference between this stock hello world app I just created could
take me a while...

For what it's worth, Craig

From: Dieter Wimberger
Sent: Wed 6/25/2008 6:10 PM
To: dev@felix.apache.org
Subject: Re: telnetd discussion

Richard, all:

Thought I put the "simple access alternative" together so you can  
decide upon facts not ideas.


Size is close to 15kB, only dependency is the felix shell service  
bundle. Port is 6666 by default and may be configured using the system  
property "osgi.shell.telnet.port".
(No command history, but BS, DEL and Strg-U work).


On 25 Jun 2008, at 15:35, Richard S. Hall wrote:

> Dieter Wimberger wrote:
>> Richard, all:
>> I'd suggest to first take a step back and ask yourselves a question.
>> As far as I understood from the discussion, you would be looking  
>> for an occasional, simple telnet based remote access to the felix  
>> shell service.
>> If this is correct, then I wonder whether it really requires a  
>> telnet/SSH2 compliant server with connection management to achieve  
>> this. Actually, taking equinox as an example, it's nothing more  
>> than a simple single connection without any telnet protocol  
>> negotiation happening at all.
>> So, this is the question I'd suggest to ask yourselves before we  
>> proceed to find a solution:
>> Do you need something like the simple equinox "telnet" access, or  
>> do you need a "real" telnet/SSH server?
>> If the answer is "we need a simple access", then I would actually  
>> suggest to hack a simple listener implementation into the glue  
>> bundle, make it "the telnet" bundle and go with it (from my point  
>> of view, telnetd-osgi would be simply an overkill tool for that job).
> Good question. Most of my use cases would be the simple variety, but  
> I wouldn't want to be constrained to it either. I think the point,  
> for me, is to create a useful tool that is flexible enough to be  
> used in simple cases as well as more sophisticated ones.
> -> richard
>> Regards,
>> Dieter
>>> 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).
>> Felix, could you please drop me a copy of this analysis? :)
>>> 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

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