Based on what I read from your reply - pdf document of the OSGI spec, I would suggest to migrate.
Regards, Charles Moulliard Senior Enterprise Architect Apache Camel Committer ***************************** blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
