geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Russell E Glaue <>
Subject Re: What's the reason why not to add .sh extension to geornimo scripts ?
Date Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:43:53 GMT

On 07/06/2011 10:56 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2011, at 4:13 AM, Shawn Jiang wrote:
>> I noticed that there are no extensions for all sh scripts of geornimo.
>>   Does anyone know what's the background of this ?
>> GERONIMO_HOME\bin\client
>> GERONIMO_HOME\bin\deploy
>> GERONIMO_HOME\bin\geronimo
>> GERONIMO_HOME\bin\register-service
>> GERONIMO_HOME\bin\shutdown
>> GERONIMO_HOME\bin\startup
> I believe it started with bin/geronimo -- which was based on the karaf command and that
convention was carried over. Run 'svn log framework/configs/karaf-framework/src/main/distribution/unix-shell/bin/geronimo'
for more details.
> I know some people like to have <command>.bat and <command> that way invoking
a command is the same on linux/windows. Personally, I think we should have maintained our
existing conventions (e.g., etc). I'm somewhat used to typing 'geronimo', now.
So, don't have a strong opinion. Would value input from users.
> --kevan

The file name suffix, is primarily for the benefit of windows-type machines
which need the file extension for determining run-time interpretation.

It would probably be necessary if the *nix shell script files appeared in a
Windows OS installation of Geronimo, only so Windows users do not try to execute

Otherwise, the suffix is primarily for human visualization, so one can know the
intention of the script by looking at the name. Without the suffix, one commonly
pre-judges the script to be binary (though I will `head -1 file` it).

If the source is browsed in a Web Browser, having the suffix allows user-defined
methods for viewing the files, instead of the browser and server assuming the
suffix-less file is binary.

Most of us don't double-click on unix scripts from a GUI, so it is not necessary
to have the suffix extensions for the GUI's identification.

I would say a common documentation on how to execute the bat/sh scripts (without
deviation for OS differences) is more important than GUI recognition of the file
type. Most new users do not care how the script is interpreted. Most old users
already know.

Besides, having a ".sh" extension does not tell you if the script is bash, csh,
ksh, etc... So if you want to know the interpreter of a ".sh" file, you still
have to look.


View raw message