karaf-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>
Subject Re: Writing commands for karaf shell.
Date Sat, 22 Jul 2017 05:44:13 GMT
That sounds interesting. Can you point us to the code where those commands
are implemented and where the completion is defined?
I know there is the completion support that you can define in the shell
init script but I think this is difficult to maintain this way.

Is it now possible to somehow define the completion for gogo commands per
bundle or even by annotations directly on the class?


2017-07-21 16:57 GMT+02:00 Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@apache.org>:

> If you look at Karaf >= 4.1.x, a bunch of commands are not coming from
> Karaf anymore, but from Gogo or JLine.  I moved them when working on the
> gogo / jline3 integration.  The main point that was blocking imho is that
> they did not have completion support.  With the new fully scripted
> completion system from gogo-jline, gogo commands can have full completion,
> so I don't see any blocking points anymore.  It's just about tracking
> commands and registering them in the karaf shell.
> 2017-07-21 15:27 GMT+02:00 Christian Schneider <chris@die-schneider.net>:
>> On 21.07.2017 12:27, tom@quarendon.net wrote:
>>> Yes, but what's the actual situation from a standards point of view?
>>> Is a shell defined by a standard at all? OSGi enroute seems to require a
>>> gogo shell and appears to rely on felix gogo shell command framework.
>>> Is it just that Karaf happens to ship a shell that happens to be based
>>> on the felix gogo shell (or perhaps not, but stack traces seem to suggest
>>> so), but that basically if I want to implement a shell command I have to
>>> implement it differently for each shell type?
>>> That seems a poor situation and leaves me with having to implement one
>>> command implementation to be used in the development environment and one
>>> that is used in the karaf deployment.
>>> Originally I thought that Karaf was the "enterprise version of felix".
>>> This doesn't seem to be the case?
>>> There *could* be a really powerful environment and ecosystem here, if it
>>> was all a *little* bit less fragmented :-)
>> I fully agree that we need to work towards more common approaches. The
>> OSGi ecosystem is too small to afford being fragmented like this.
>> We all have the chance and duty to work on improving this though.
>> Christian
>> --
>> Christian Schneider
>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>> Open Source Architect
>> http://www.talend.com
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet

Christian Schneider

Open Source Architect

View raw message