The help command is really a bad example, as until yesterday, it was included in the console bundle, so it was not able to use the namespace handler. AFAIK, that's the only reason why it uses such a verbose syntax, and that's the only case where such syntax is used (afaik).
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Christian Schneider <[email protected] > wrote: > We currently either use the blueprint namespace or the AbstractCommand and > a service definition to define commands. This has some shortcomings: > - The blueprint namespace definition is a bit verbose and at first I did > not understand that actions in the xml can be injected like beans > Example: > > <command-bundle > xmlns="http://karaf.apache.**org/xmlns/shell/v1.1.0<http://karaf.apache.org/xmlns/shell/v1.1.0> > "> > <command> > <action class="org.apache.karaf.shell.** > commands.impl.WatchAction"> > <property name="commandProcessor" ref="commandProcessor"/> > </action> > <completers> > <ref component-id="**commandCompleter" /> > <null/> > </completers> > </command> > </command-bundle> > > - The other way using AbstractCommand and a service def is even more > verbose and exposes a lot of implementation details like the > DefaultActionPreparator > > <bean id="commandCompleter" class="org.apache.karaf.shell.** > console.completer.**CommandsCompleter"/> > <service> > <interfaces> > <value>org.apache.felix.**service.command.Function</**value> > <value>org.apache.karaf.shell.**console.CompletableFunction</** > value> > </interfaces> > <service-properties> > <entry key="osgi.command.scope" value="*"/> > <entry key="osgi.command.function" value="help"/> > </service-properties> > <bean class="org.apache.karaf.shell.**console.commands.** > BlueprintCommand"> > <property name="blueprintContainer" ref="blueprintContainer"/> > <property name="blueprintConverter" ref="blueprintConverter"/> > <property name="actionId" value="help"/> > <property name="completers"> > <list> > <bean class="org.apache.karaf.shell.** > console.completer.**CommandNamesCompleter"/> > </list> > </property> > </bean> > </service> > > <bean id="help" class="org.apache.karaf.shell.**help.impl.HelpAction" > activation="lazy" scope="prototype"> > <property name="provider" ref="helpSystem"/> > </bean> > > > So here is what I propose: > > The first thing is to add a complerers property to the @Commands > annotation. This is the last bit we need to make sure the annotations > provide all metadata of an action. > Then the idea is to simply define the action as a blueprint bean and > publish it as an OSGi service. We then have an extender that adapts these > to the felix gogo commands. > > So the blueprint code for the help example above would look like: > <service interface="org.apache.karaf.**shell.commands.Action"> > <bean id="help" class="org.apache.karaf.shell.**help.impl.HelpAction" > activation="lazy" scope="prototype"> > <property name="provider" ref="helpSystem"/> > </bean> > </service> > > With the upcoming blueprint annotations we could simply annotate the > Action class and need no blueprint code at all. The above style would also > work much better with declarative services. If you look at the scr module > in karaf you see how complicated it is till now to create a command in ds. > > One problem with the aproach is of course that the Action has to be > created per execution. So we need to find a good way to clone the Action > object. To a degree this problem is already present int the current > solution. > > So what are the advantages: > - The user code only depends on some very few interfaces like Action and > the annotations. AbstractCommand and similar are not needed anymore and the > impls can be private > - The blueprint syntax is quite concise and does not need a special > namespace > - Using BP annotations the syntax is even more concise as no xml is > needed. This would not be possible with the current way > > So what do you think? > > Christian > > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com > > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ FuseSource, Integration everywhere http://fusesource.com
