Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:X-Mailer;
  b=6l4wU4SG+HyXpVI/h7wKTmZy1ZmVqK+qn41sltMbWax8p1Kz4IH3EbLYlwuKfx6HdsZaXH6Lg4RElN9rqNjcSHmbWlprUZIsLv1rYjF8aNtHD6bPTPp3ehKG+3VPfq6G9XmpcIX/nSC3KuNLptMrdHszVIlM0bQ4zfXLE5SJqwg=
  ;
Message-Id: <57459D6B-9B08-4C26-9DA8-FB7DE8F39AB4@yahoo.com>
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <f2af330e0911051940g4d2748dfr1cc4d068040d3a2e@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Subject: Re: Is there any plan to migrate existing geronimo shell commands
  from gshell to karaf shell in geronimo 3.0 ?
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 22:12:35 -0800
References: <f2af330e0911031940q73b893dekd805ffdd56a9e90c@mail.gmail.com>
 <f2af330e0911051940g4d2748dfr1cc4d068040d3a2e@mail.gmail.com>


On Nov 5, 2009, at 7:40 PM, Shawn Jiang wrote:

> Currently, here are different opinions on how G3.0 shell should go:
>
> 1, Remove gshell completely, migrate all existing commands to karaf =20=

> console.
>       Pros:  Minimize the server size.  Bring a clean, easy to use =20
> command program model.

I'm not sure it's significantly different from gshell
>       Cons: Break users existing shell.
How?  If we give the commands the same name we can provide a unix =20
shell script called gsh and any gshell scripts should still work....

>
> 2, Keep gshell as it was, add a gshell-karaf bridge to call karaf =20
> commands in gshell.
>       Pros:  Enlarge the server size. Bring a more complex command =20
> infrastructure.
>       Cons: Without breaking users existing shell.
>
> Does anyone have another thoughts on this ?  Maybe we need a vote =20
> for this someday.
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Shawn Jiang <genspring@gmail.com> =20
> wrote:
> Now we are using karaf as OSGI runtime. Karaf has its own shell =20
> which is based on RFC 139 command service.  Karaf shell uses =20
> blueprint and a set of util abstract classes to provide a easy to =20
> use program model  for new commands.
>
>
> Geronimo 2.x has its own shell which
> 	=95 bases on gshell
> 	=95 uses groovy to define commands.(I don't kown why but I don't =
like =20
> this)
> 	=95 uses classworld to bootstrap itself

these don't seem important to me
> 	=95 uses a serverProxy to provide geronimo server startup/stop =20=

> commands.
> 	=95 uses JMX to invoke jsr88 implementation to provide =
applications =20
> deploy/undeploy/distribution commands.
> 	=95 uses JMX to get plugin installer GBean instance to provide =
plugin =20
> install and customized assemblely commands.

I think any replacement will do these the same way
>
> I found that all the gshell bootstrap files in geronimo_home/etc has =20=

> been removed in geronimo 3.0 framework.   Is there any plan  to =20
> migrate existing geronimo shell commands from gshell to karaf shell =20=

> in geronimo 3.0 ?

I figured we'd do it sooner or later....
thanks
david jencks

>
>
> --=20
> Shawn
>
>
thanks
david jencks

>
> --=20
> Shawn