karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Baptiste Onofré ...@nanthrax.net>
Subject Re: Ideas about karaf and gogo commands
Date Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:56:02 GMT

gentlemen, calm down and try to focus on the ways to improve Karaf.

Christian presented a proposal for discussion, Achim replies with 
pros/cons: it's the Apache way and that's why it has to be discussed.
We just have to say in a polite and constructive discussion.

When we propose a new feature/change, we have to be ready to accept 
critics (and don't think we have THE solution, maybe we don't see the 
complete picture), and on the other hand, when describing pros/cons on a 
proposal, it should be done in a gentle, polite, and constructive way.

I think that Christian proposal has very interesting values, especially 
about a commands API. The details should be polished (for instance, I'm 
not yet sure that gogo shell is good basement), but we can move on and 
look forward on some detailed discussion.

Achim also expressed a good point: keep it simple, not reinvent the 
wheel. I take it more like a general reminder for all of us: we did a 
great work in Karaf in term of end-user convenience, flexible features, 
etc. Some part are very "Karaf centric", and it makes sense to provide 
something more generic and flexible if you want to increase the 
popularity of Karaf. On the other hand, those changes must not break the 
existing and implemented as an atomic plant ;)

So, let express constructive critics (a critic can be negative or 
positive) and move forward all together to build a better Karaf.

As reminder: personal promotion, selfish, pedantic, etc don't take place 
in Apache projects (and OpenSource projects in general). We are 
dedicated to the users and the community, always listen our team mates, 
committed on the project. The project doesn't belong to anyone, it 
belongs to everybody, including the users.

Thanks guys

On 02/27/2014 09:21 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> Hi Achim,
> I accept you opinion yet with some disappointment about your ignorance of
> the outside world.
> I hope this does not refelect the whole karaf community.
> JB and Guillaume seem to be fine with improving the gogo support.
> As for the KISS principle. I think the gogo command style follows this
> principle better then the karaf Action style. You can simply export a gogo
> command class as a service. So you are really just exposed to the API. For
> DS this also means
> that there is no need for any extender. Can it be more simple like that?
> In our Action case there always has to be a Command adapter that needs to
> be pulled up and exported as a command. Guillaume did some great work to
> make the usage of Action in karaf as easy as possible and it helps us a lot.
> Still the gogo model is just simpler in its core. So I think we should at
> least consider it too. Especially when we think about a new API for karaf 4.
> What I miss from all your mails is some real technical arguments. Your
> arguments are just I don't need it and I don't care about the outside
> world. This style of discussion reminds me more of politics than apache. As
> said above I accept this as your opinion. So I am fine if you do not want
> to go into more details.
> Christian
> 2014-02-27 6:58 GMT+01:00 Achim Nierbeck <bcanhome@googlemail.com>:
>> I thought about if I really should answer this, but here we go
>> 2014-02-26 13:43 GMT+01:00 Christian Schneider <chris@die-schneider.net>:
>>> Hi Achim,
>>> have you ever asked any developer of commands outside karaf what he wants
>>> or needs?
>>> You asume yagni but is it perhaps more like iagni ?
>> Actually I don't care about outside Karaf, cause if you want the features
>> use karaf. If you can't, stop whining and find a way to use Karaf. It's as
>> simple as that
>> If that is still not possible, well live with it. Live isn't Pony-Ranch,
>> usually you don't get what you want and have to live with it, and make the
>> best of it!
>>> Are you really sure that an external developer could live with the only
>>> two alternatives you would give them?
>>> - Loose all extended karaf features
>>> - Create two sets of commands
>>> I also think we should separate two things here. What I spend my time
>> with
>>> is mainly my concern.
>>> The other thing is the impact on karaf. I clearly understand that you
>> fear
>>> a more complicated code in karaf.
>>> I can assure you that I will do my best to keep the code simple to better
>>> support gogo commands.
>> You are absolutely right, it is not my business to take care what you do
>> the whole day, you might as well drill yourself a hole in the head, I
>> actually don't care.
>> But what I do care is, does it put a bigger value into Karaf, does it move
>> Karaf forward.
>> Is it worth all the hassle, that I do care.
>> And with only looking at Karaf I don't see the value!
>> If you want to change gogo, go to felix, discuss it there find a way to get
>> the felix people to like your ideas. If you're done with that, then we
>> might have a benefit to use a common implementation.
>> But OOPS, you still have to convince the eclipse people to use it also. Now
>> that is something I'd call a challenge.
>>> There is also a need for a new command API in karaf 4 which Guillaume
>> also
>>> looks into. I see some good reasons why maybe an extended gogo API may be
>>> the best fit for us.
>>> Trying to achieve better support for gogo commands would also give us a
>>> good chance to see how this alternative would work. So it might help us
>>> decide
>>> about the future API.
>> As much I've seen so far, all of Guillaumes improvements did focus on KISS.
>>  From yours I can't say that.
>>> Christian
>>> Am 26.02.2014 09:48, schrieb Achim Nierbeck:
>>>> But again, this is a propblem which doesn't really concern Karaf. If
>>>> Camel, CXF, ActiveMQ do need other commands, go create those "striped"
>>>> commands there, use-case solved (Keep It Simple, Stupid - KISS) [1]. So
>> you
>>>> should rather spent your time productive on reducing the scope of the
>>>> commands then another POC that's just another YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna
>> Need
>>>> It) [2]
>>>> I'm repeating myself, I haven't seen such people yet, still go back to
>> the
>>>> basics if needed, provide Commands that fit the environment to run in,
>>>> instead over-complicating the stuff that works for Karaf.
>>>> regards, Achim
>>>> [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle
>>>> [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren%27t_gonna_need_it
>>>>> Christian
>>>>> --
>>>>> Christian Schneider
>>>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>>>> Open Source Architect
>>>>> http://www.talend.com
>>> --
>>>   Christian Schneider
>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>> Open Source Architect
>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>> --
>> Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
>> OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer &
>> Project Lead
>> OPS4J Pax for Vaadin <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home>
>> Commiter & Project Lead
>> blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Talend - http://www.talend.com

View raw message