On 07/13/2011 02:43 PM, Russell E Glaue wrote: > > 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. geronimo.sh, 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 > them. > > 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. > > -RG >
Looking at what would be the likely Windows user download for the distribution of Geronimo (the zip file), I see that Windows batch and Unix shell scripts are intermingled in the bin directory, and that the shell scripts have no extension. I would say that for alleviating any possible confusion among new Windows users, we should put the ".sh" extensions back onto the shell script file names. Either that, or we have the build process create two distributions, one for each OS, which I think makes our release process unnecessarily more confusing. Adding the suffix is much easier. IMO, A -3 character typing convenience is not a great argument against the possible misidentification/confusion of new users. Though I would prefer Documentation to be normalized for Unix environments, and thus leaving off the .sh suffix, and having Windows environments be the deviation, thus requiring the .bat suffix - I think most new users will be application programmers, and they are still predominately using Windows. Our effort should be focused on making things as less confusing as we can over convenience. -RG
