Thanks Larry ! I really like the idea of expanding KnoxShell, following are my initial thoughts on KIP-4
1) It appears that the "Discussion thread" points to KIP-1 thread. 2) I like the idea of Programming Model/Definitions, like you mentioned some use cases would be great to get jump started. Do you think they should get their own sub KIP when the formalization process starts ? 3) KnoxShell Session/SSO - Headless scripts would be cool. Also, do you think KnoxShell should retain some state data i.e. say command_1 returns a json, then command_2 might use it as an argument to do something else. One of the problem with this, other then storing state, would be transformations (might or might not be needed) , may be this can be something of a future enhancement. Best, Sandeep On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:49 PM, larry mccay <[email protected]> wrote: > All - > > I've taken a stab at a first iteration of the KIP for KnoxShell > improvements. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KNOX/KIP-4+ > KnoxShell+Improvements > > We should try and discuss these ideas and come up with what exactly what > needs to be in a programming model definition and SDK and whether they are > compelling enough to pursue. > > I think that there are some exciting opportunities here when we consider > the cloud deployments - as I've said. > > Let's figure out what we would like to light up in the 0.11.0 if anything! > > thanks, > > --larry >
