felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Move ServiceMix Kernel into Felix as a subproject
Date Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:08:22 GMT
Yes, I agree.

There are a few difference in the goals though. The shell from
ServiceMix provides shell completion, ansi colors and such.  Commands
are also easier to implement by using a few annotated fields, allowing
people to write commands very easily and not having to parse all
arguments, implement the help system, usage, etc...

But yeah, there is definitely some work to make all those shells more aligned.

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 15:02, Alin Dreghiciu <adreghiciu@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for moving SMX Kernel to Felix and also for the name. I'm just
> wondering about the following: SMXK comes with its one, very
> nice/powerful shell: gshell and quote a lot of effort is there to
> implement OSGi and services related shell commands. Very good guys.
> But now there is another shell at felix which again has its own
> commands. More Peter Kriens donated his own shell implementation which
> was used to prototype RFC132. So, isn't there to many shells? I think
> from the user perspective will be good if they are familiar with the
> shell regardless they use Felix or SMK shell. More, writing commands
> shall not be a duplicate effort, something for felix shell and
> something for SMXK.
> Personally I would like a combination between gshell and PeterK work.
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> During ApacheCon last week, there has been some discussions around
>> moving ServiceMix Kernel as a subproject of Felix.
>> ServiceMix Kernel is a packaged distribution of Felix designed for
>> server side applications (see http://servicemix.apache.org/kernel/ for
>> more informations).
>> I think this would be beneficial for this project as it would enable
>> to build a much bigger community around it, increase the visibility
>> and the awareness around it. Of course, it would need a new name, but
>> that's another problem.
>> Another area that could be included in this move is the ServiceMix
>> specs (OSGi enhanced versions of Java EE specifications from Geronimo)
>> and ServiceMix bundles (we've released a bunch of bundles already, see
>> http://servicemix.apache.org/smx4/bundles-repository.html).
>> I'd like to have feedback from both communities (and any other
>> interested parties) to gauge the interest in such a move.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Guillaume Nodet
>> ------------------------
>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>> ------------------------
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://fusesource.com
> --
> Alin Dreghiciu
> http://www.ops4j.org - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open
> Participation Software.
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java - Domain Driven Development.
> Looking for a job.
> Sent from Cluj-Napoca, CJ, Romania

Guillaume Nodet
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
Open Source SOA

View raw message