+1 for switching to gogo David
2009/7/2 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>: > Well, if we consider switching, it *is* the right moment, as Karaf has > not done any release yet. > I'd rather do that before the first release than after. > > That said, the commands will be the same as we would just port the > existing karaf commands for gshell to gogo, which currently has a very > minimal impact (change the base class and the package for annotations, > that's mostly it). > From a syntax point of view, the difference now is that they would > look like osgi:list instead of osgi/list, but I'm quite sure I can > hack gogo to allow the customization of the separator. > I don't see any technical problems in porting the completers (which > are really helpful). > > So in short, if I can configure gogo to use '/' instead of ':' as a > separator, it should be mostly transparent for end users. People > having written commands would need to migrate though (but as I said, > it's easy to do). > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:16, Charles Moulliard<[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi guillaume, >> >> From a technical point of view, this seems very interesting but is it the >> right moment to do this migration regarding to client(s) using Apache >> ServiceMix4, ... ? This will impact existing documents, tutorials, ... >> >> Regards, >> >> Charles Moulliard >> Senior Enterprise Architect >> Apache Camel Committer >> >> ***************************** >> blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I've been considering swithing karaf shell from Geronimo Gshell to Felix >>> Gogo. >>> The main reasons are: >>> * Gogo is/will implement OSGi RFC 0142 to standardize the shell >>> (it's not yet a spec, but should be in the future) >>> * Gogo should be able to be used at launch time to run the framework >>> * Gogo shell syntax is more powerfull, in addition to pipes, it >>> supports closures, loops, if / then / else ... >>> * lightweight: < 100 ko vs > 1 Mo for gshell >>> >>> The drawbacks are: >>> * yet another change in the syntax (we've already changed it when >>> between 1.0.0 and 1.1.0) >>> * some more work is needed as we're currently missing completors, >>> history, banner >>> >>> Feedback welcome >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> Guillaume Nodet >>> ------------------------ >>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >>> ------------------------ >>> Open Source SOA >>> http://fusesource.com >>> >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com >
