felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>
Subject Re: Gogo commands module (Was: Re: svn commit: r952918 - in /felix/trunk: gogo/commands/ gogo/commands/src/main/java/org/apache/felix/gogo/commands/ gogo/commands/src/main/java/org/apache/felix/gogo/commands/basic/ gogo/commands/src/main/java/org/apa
Date Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:57:35 GMT
On 6/23/10 9:45, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 15:37, Richard S. Hall<heavy@ungoverned.org>  wrote:
>> On 6/23/10 9:14, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 14:31, Richard S. Hall<heavy@ungoverned.org>
>>>   wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/10 5:45, Guillaume Sauthier wrote:
>>>>> Hi guys
>>>>> Maybe I react after the battle but, I was quite happy with the commands
>>>>> module in gogo :)
>>>>> I thought it was really some kind of extension to the gogo framework,
>>>>> not
>>>>> so closely related to karaf.
>>>>> We're using it in a chameleon subproject [1] to provide commands/actions
>>>>> as iPOJO components.
>>>>> And we're definitely not depending on karaf, but on gogo.
>>>>> Is it possible to move back that module into gogo or at least discuss
>>>>> the
>>>>> issue ?
>>>> Even if it is in Karaf, there is nothing that prevents you from using it
>>>> from there. I'm sure it will continue to be released as a separate
>>>> module,
>>>> so it doesn't really matter if the groupId is org.apache.felix or
>>>> org.apache.karaf.
>>>> Ultimately, the commands module was ported from previous Karaf/ServiceMix
>>>> Kernel work and didn't completely fit the Gogo model, which isn't about
>>>> registering Function services as commands, but rather ordinary Java
>>>> objects.
>>>> So, it doesn't seem fitting for Gogo to promote an approach that isn't
>>>> the
>>>> intended approach.
>>> That's your view of gogo and please bear in mind your view is not always
>>> everyone's view nor the only possible view.   The
>>> org.osgi.service.command package
>>> defines 4 interfaces, one of them being Function.  I can't possibly
>>> imagine how
>>> you can assert that this interface has been designed not to be used.
>>>    If you don't want to use it, that's fine.  I don't see why this has to
>>> be *the* way ...
>>> And please, don't say people are free to do it another way, because that's
>>> what
>>> you're trying to rule out by pushing this one into the api and pushing
>>> out the gogo
>>> the previous commands module.
>> The reality is this:
>>   1. When I started to use Gogo, I tried to use the commands module
>>      first. I found it very cumbersome and unintuitive.
>>   2. I talked with some people about using Gogo and none of them were
>>      using the commands module and specifically Peter Kriens told me
>>      that the Function interface was really only intended for closures
>>      and whatnot and that I should just be using objects with methods.
>>   3. Following Peter's advice, I tried to create commands the way he
>>      suggested, which led to other shortcomings which were corrected by
>>      the addition of some annotations, which were created in concert
>>      with Peter. After that, things went swimmingly.
>>   4. Given that the commands module didn't fit this view and no one was
>>      using it besides Karaf, it seemed to make sense to move it out of
>>      the Gogo subproject.
>> You may feel that this is forcing out the commands module, but that
>> certainly wasn't the case given that's where I started. I am not sure why
>> you feel having a separate module is such a bad thing, since that's the
>> whole point of OSGi.
> Well, I guess I may have a different view if all of that would have
> happened publicly on the dev list and not using backchannels.

Considering I discussed the issues I was having with you directly and we 
created a JIRA issue for the removal commands module, I hardly think 
this was backchannels.

Still, if you are really going to get your undies in a bunch, we can 
move it back, but its groupId will need to be changed to 
"org.apache.felix" and it will need a new artifactId to avoid confusion 
with the "command" module that provides commands, any suggestions?

In the end, it will still be the same as having it be a Karaf module, 
since Gogo modules will get released independently just like every other 
subproject (i.e., there is no such thing as a "Gogo distribution 
release"). Nor does it seem likely that that the Karaf approach will be 
supported by the RFC itself. So, if everyone agrees that its worthwhile 
to have the Karaf command approach be a module in the Gogo subproject 
directory, we can do that.

-> richard

>> And, for the record, I do think it makes more sense for Gogo itself to
>> promote a single way of creating commands, unless the alternative approaches
>> are completely compatible with each other and in this case they aren't
>> really compatible with each other.
>> ->  richard
>>>> The RFC behind Gogo is still changing too, so the impl will change to
>>>> reflect it. There is some effort to provide similar capabilities in the
>>>> core
>>>> RFC as to what the commands module provided, e.g., annotations for
>>>> describing commands. Hopefully, as it progresses it will subsume the
>>>> capabilities of the commands module, but if not, nothing prevents you
>>>> from
>>>> continuing to use the old version of the commands module (unless there is
>>>> some backwards incompatible change).
>>>> ->    richard

View raw message