Hello Wilfried, On Jun 26, 2013, at 9:58 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> I just flew over your Wiki page. This looks good. > I had a slightly different, more generic, approach. > I implemented e.g. the command: add feature name=foo .... list of attributes > For this approach, less dedicated commands are necessary. But nevertheless, > it's a trade of. A change would be very easy. Yes, I considered both and in the end went for individual commands because then I could make them a bit shorter to type. :) But I agree there's not much difference. > What's your opinion about this? > But I'm also fine with your proposal. I don't have strong arguments for either, and as you can see from the implementations, some specific commands I have call more generic methods in the backend. Coupled with the fact that you can also create your own aliases in the shell, I see a command like "cf" more like a "built in alias" ;) > As a starting point I used the VaadinClient and derived my own client from > that. > But the VaadinClient doesn't use a workspace. The REST client does. In the VaadinClient, the workspace is implicit (it is the VaadinClient). From the web UI you always work with a single workspace. From that point on, they are again the same (you login, checkout, talk to the services to manipulate entities and then commit). > I implemented directly the login command (delegated to the login of the > client API) and used also the checkout. > This worked (nearly) fine in my tests. Yup, that's the general idea. > I have to investigate a little bit on the REsT workspace, to understand this > topic a little bit better. > Then I will switch over to it. I used the REST Workspace because I thought it would be slightly more convenient as a starting point. At this point, I feel the commands are still very much in an experimental phase. We are starting to use them and learn what works and what not, so please keep providing feedback! Greetings, Marcel
