Fair enough. I am merely expressing what I believe users would want from a shell. Shells without these features feel almost unusable. Perhaps competition will suffice in the end.
Glyn On 12 May 2010, at 15:07, Peter Kriens wrote: > Tab completion and history are outside the spec ... I do not think it is > clever to standardize those, let implementations compete. > > Kind regards, > > Peter Kriens > > On 12 mei 2010, at 13:05, Derek Baum wrote: > >> On 12 May 2010 03:48, Glyn Normington <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'm sorry I don't already know if these are already provided, but two >>> critical requirements for the OSGi shell are: >>> >>> 1. tab completion of command syntax and parameters (such as bundle symbolic >>> names and version numbers) >>> 2. "up arrow" command recall (preferably filtered by any current input >>> including that provided by tab completion) >>> >>> Glyn >>> >> >> >> Hi Glyn, >> >> RFC-147 defines an OSGi CommandProcessor service containing a single method: >> >> CommandSession createSession(InputStream in, PrintStream out, >> PrintStream err); >> >> and the primary method in the CommandSession interface is: >> >> Object execute(CharSequence commandline) throws Exception; >> >> The above defines the RFC-147 "runtime" bundle, which does not contain any >> mechanism for user input. >> >> Typically, a separate shell or console bundle, not defined in RFC-147, will >> get input from the user and pass it to CommandSession.execute(). It is thus >> these bundles, and not the RFC-147 runtime, that is responsible for creating >> command completion and history etc. >> >> Derek >
