Ignasi, Thanks for calling out Cloudsoft AMP as a user of jclouds-karaf. We plan as Apache Brooklyn community to rely more on it in the next versions.
Personally I'd prefer to have jclouds-examples always up-to-date (sorry if I started to improve that repo and still unfinished that task) as it seems more useful from a development perspective rather than the jclouds-cli which is more a sysadmin tool, imho. Please fire up rc3 if you can! My two cents, Andrea Il 09/nov/2016 19:46, "Ignasi Barrera" <n...@apache.org> ha scritto: > I've opened the following pull requests to workaround the issue: > https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-karaf/pull/86 > https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-cli/pull/35 > > I've done it in a way that there is only a workaround in the CLI, but keep > karaf unchanged and OSGi friendly. The CLI just fallbacks to the regular > ScriptEnginManager if none is defined for a karaf command. If you find the > patch OK I'll merge the PRs and the OneAndOne tests one, and proceed with > the RC3. > > Regarding the CLI deprecation, we'd better create a specific thread for > that. I really think the jclouds-karaf project has a lot of value, as > allows us to properly validate that we remain OSGi compatible. There are > also downstream users that build products with jclouds and OSGI (for > example the CloudSoft AMP [1]), so having a way to validate that jclouds > can run in OSGi environments is something we should have. Deprecating the > CLI is another topic, but taking into account that it is just one single > main class, and does not introduce overhead (and it is pretty convenient to > cleanup the providers for our live tests builds, in fact there is a build > in Jenkins that runs the CLI to delete all nodes in a provider after the > live tests), I don't have a strong opinion on deprecating it. > > > So... Good to go for the patches and green light to start the RC3? > > > [1] http://www.cloudsoft.io/amp-4 > > > > > > On 9 November 2016 at 18:06, Andrew Phillips <aphill...@qrmedia.com> > wrote: > > > I have ambivalence about this. jclouds-cli consumes a lot of resources > >> relative to its limited user base. > >> > > > > Agreed. To me, this is definitely another datapoint pointing towards a > > deprecation discussion for the CLI as a whole. I just would prefer not to > > release a *broken* version. > > > > Regards > > > > ap > > >
