-1 (non-binding) Meh. I'm a fan of the OSGi list format, not so much with the pipe-delimited format. The reason for this is that the suggested pipe-delimited format appears to be missing the state, Blueprint and start-level columns that are very necessary to debugging issues. Additionally, I don't understand the business case behind changing the format and losing needed columns.
Christian Schneider wrote: > > Hi all > > while implementing https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-561 > I found that I do not like the look of our current table output like in > osgi:list too much. > > Currently it looks like this: > ID State Blueprint Level Name > [ 0] [Active ] [ ] [ 0] System Bundle (3.2.1) > [ 1] [Active ] [ ] [ 5] OPS4J Pax Url - aether: > (1.3.4) > [ 2] [Active ] [ ] [ 5] OPS4J Pax Url - wrap: (1.3.4) > [ 3] [Active ] [ ] [ 8] OPS4J Pax Logging - Service > (1.6.3) > [ 4] [Active ] [ ] [ 8] OPS4J Pax Logging - API > (1.6.3) > [ 5] [Active ] [ ] [ 10] Apache Felix Configuration > Admin Service (1.2.8) > > For obr:list I experimented with the following: > | NAME | SYMBOLIC > NAME | VERSION | > | dm Kernel OSGi Spring DM Fragment | > com.springsource.kernel.kerneldmfragment | 2.0.1.RELEASE | > | dm Kernel OSGi Spring DM Fragment | > com.springsource.kernel.kerneldmfragment | 2.0.2.RELEASE | > | dm Kernel OSGi Spring DM Fragment | > com.springsource.kernel.kerneldmfragment | 2.0.3.RELEASE | > > I think that looks much cleaner. > > What do you think? Even more ideas? > > Christian > > -- > > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com > ----- Mike Van -- View this message in context: http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Discuss-How-to-display-tables-in-karaf-shell-tp3151467p3151822.html Sent from the Karaf - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
