The number of characters per command is the same.
Using tab can save you from typing most characters in both styles.
So I think the focus on resources really makes the difference and I
think it is more natural to think in resources for humans than in commands.
Christian
Am 08.12.2011 10:38, schrieb Charles Moulliard:
Hi,
I prefer that we keep as command family name a short name. "camel" is
fine but "camel-route" or "camel-context" are too long. Imagine when
operating a project on a platform, the number of characters to be
typed on the keyboard. This has an impact which is not negligible.
So why not using camel:lisr-routes, camel:list-contexts and their
shortcut clr, clc
Regards,
Charles
On 08/12/11 09:49, Christian Schneider wrote:
I really like the idea of having camel:route and then simply call
list or start or stop.
We can even do that without the sub shells already by naming the
commands slightly different.
Instead
camel:route-list
camel:context-list
I propose to have:
camel-route:list
camel-context:list
This would be more similar to the later sub shell commands.
Christian
Am 05.12.2011 09:54, schrieb James Strachan:
On 2 December 2011 15:29, Claus Ibsen<claus.ib...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
On the Karaf @dev they are talking about changing the naming of the
commands.
http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-New-Karaf-commands-norm-td3430815.html
eg
camel:list-routes --> camel:route-list
Or we could even go with route:list so when there's sub shells we
could do
shell camel:route
list
start foo
stop bar
etc
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
