On 6/23/10 9:45, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 15:37, Richard S. Hall<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/23/10 9:14, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 14:31, Richard S. Hall<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 6/23/10 5:45, Guillaume Sauthier wrote:
Hi guys
Maybe I react after the battle but, I was quite happy with the commands
module in gogo :)
I thought it was really some kind of extension to the gogo framework,
not
so closely related to karaf.
We're using it in a chameleon subproject [1] to provide commands/actions
as iPOJO components.
And we're definitely not depending on karaf, but on gogo.
Is it possible to move back that module into gogo or at least discuss
the
issue ?
Even if it is in Karaf, there is nothing that prevents you from using it
from there. I'm sure it will continue to be released as a separate
module,
so it doesn't really matter if the groupId is org.apache.felix or
org.apache.karaf.
Ultimately, the commands module was ported from previous Karaf/ServiceMix
Kernel work and didn't completely fit the Gogo model, which isn't about
registering Function services as commands, but rather ordinary Java
objects.
So, it doesn't seem fitting for Gogo to promote an approach that isn't
the
intended approach.
That's your view of gogo and please bear in mind your view is not always
everyone's view nor the only possible view. The
org.osgi.service.command package
defines 4 interfaces, one of them being Function. I can't possibly
imagine how
you can assert that this interface has been designed not to be used.
If you don't want to use it, that's fine. I don't see why this has to
be *the* way ...
And please, don't say people are free to do it another way, because that's
what
you're trying to rule out by pushing this one into the api and pushing
out the gogo
the previous commands module.
The reality is this:
1. When I started to use Gogo, I tried to use the commands module
first. I found it very cumbersome and unintuitive.
2. I talked with some people about using Gogo and none of them were
using the commands module and specifically Peter Kriens told me
that the Function interface was really only intended for closures
and whatnot and that I should just be using objects with methods.
3. Following Peter's advice, I tried to create commands the way he
suggested, which led to other shortcomings which were corrected by
the addition of some annotations, which were created in concert
with Peter. After that, things went swimmingly.
4. Given that the commands module didn't fit this view and no one was
using it besides Karaf, it seemed to make sense to move it out of
the Gogo subproject.
You may feel that this is forcing out the commands module, but that
certainly wasn't the case given that's where I started. I am not sure why
you feel having a separate module is such a bad thing, since that's the
whole point of OSGi.
Well, I guess I may have a different view if all of that would have
happened publicly on the dev list and not using backchannels.
Considering I discussed the issues I was having with you directly and we
created a JIRA issue for the removal commands module, I hardly think
this was backchannels.
Still, if you are really going to get your undies in a bunch, we can
move it back, but its groupId will need to be changed to
"org.apache.felix" and it will need a new artifactId to avoid confusion
with the "command" module that provides commands, any suggestions?
In the end, it will still be the same as having it be a Karaf module,
since Gogo modules will get released independently just like every other
subproject (i.e., there is no such thing as a "Gogo distribution
release"). Nor does it seem likely that that the Karaf approach will be
supported by the RFC itself. So, if everyone agrees that its worthwhile
to have the Karaf command approach be a module in the Gogo subproject
directory, we can do that.
-> richard
And, for the record, I do think it makes more sense for Gogo itself to
promote a single way of creating commands, unless the alternative approaches
are completely compatible with each other and in this case they aren't
really compatible with each other.
-> richard
The RFC behind Gogo is still changing too, so the impl will change to
reflect it. There is some effort to provide similar capabilities in the
core
RFC as to what the commands module provided, e.g., annotations for
describing commands. Hopefully, as it progresses it will subsume the
capabilities of the commands module, but if not, nothing prevents you
from
continuing to use the old version of the commands module (unless there is
some backwards incompatible change).
-> richard
