karaf-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Baptiste Onofré ...@nanthrax.net>
Subject Re: Writing commands for karaf shell.
Date Sat, 22 Jul 2017 10:34:23 GMT
That's what I said: there is not generic standard and the standard in Karaf is the Karaf commands.

My €0.1


On Jul 22, 2017, 12:16, at 12:16, Tim Ward <tim.ward@paremus.com> wrote:
>Sorry to wind this back a little, but there were a couple of questions
>from Tom which got skipped over. 
>I'm afraid that when it comes to shells there isn't a standard. There
>was an RFC created a long time ago, which roughly represented the work
>that is now Gogo. There was a decision at the time that there wasn't a
>need for a standard, this decision could be revisited, particularly if
>someone wants to drive the work through the Alliance.
>As for the following question:
>>> Originally I thought that Karaf was the "enterprise version of
>felix". This doesn't seem to be the case?
>Karaf and Felix may both be hosted at Apache, but Karaf is a totally
>separate project from Felix with a very different ethos. Karaf does not
>implement an OSGi framework, or OSGi standards, but builds a server
>based on OSGi components from a variety of places. 
>Karaf is flexible, but ultimately opinionated about libraries and
>dictates a number of high level choices. Felix works hard to allow you
>to use implementations from anywhere with the standalone components
>they produce. 
>Karaf is also prepared to invent concepts (e.g. features and kar files)
>and not contribute them back to OSGi, leaving them as proprietary
>extensions. This even happens when OSGi standards do exist (or are
>nearly final). Karaf also promotes non standard (and some non Apache)
>programming model extensions.
>While this does, by some measures, make Karaf a "bad" OSGi citizen, it
>is also one of the reasons why Karaf is so successful, and helps to
>drive OSGi adoption (a very good thing for OSGi). By being opinionated
>Karaf can be simpler for new users, even if it provides a more limited
>view of what your OSGi options are. The Felix framework, on the other
>hand, lets you make all the decisions, but also requires you to make
>all the decisions!
>In summary I would describe Karaf as an Open Source OSGi server
>runtime, where Felix is more like a base operating system.
>Sent from my iPhone
>> On 22 Jul 2017, at 06:44, Christian Schneider
><chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>> 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?
>> Christian
>> 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
>>>>> On 21.07.2017 12:27, tom@quarendon.net wrote:
>>>>> Yes, but what's the actual situation from a standards point of
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>> Open Source Architect
>> http://www.talend.com

View raw message