On 6/23/10 10:14, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
We actually did discuss that on skype. The initial thoughts were to
modify and reuse all the existing karaf commands and make them a bit
more generic, and at some point you found some naming issues on the
interface and annotations defined. I was not aware you were to rewrite
everything from scratch. I guess that happened after you discussed
with Peter, but i wasn't in the loop.
Actually, I did discuss the approach with you specifically and you
mentioned there were potential issues because you needed to create new
functions every time whereas the approach I was suggesting was a
singleton. We even discussed the naming of the annotations and I renamed
them based on some of your feedback and later even changed how command
descriptions were annotated based on your feedback.
You then pushed your new
annotations in svn and those still don't address some features we need
in karaf (completion is the most important that comes to my mind if
you ask), so we can't even migrate to those.
Right, we discussed that too. The hope is/was that those can be ironed
out in the RFC.
So now, we moved this bits back into karaf as requested, which is not
a problem in itself (I just wasted a few days working on extracting
this module just to move it back a few months later). I guess the
problem is that we now have two different sets of commands and karaf
can't even be upgraded to the new gogo version because the package as
been renamed to org.apache.felix (instead of splitting the existing
org.osgi.service.command package that had been published from the new
annotations you added).
I'm still not sure what we'll do in the coming weeks about that.
Well, the package renaming was in response to the issues you raised
about making modifications in the org.osgi namespace. Here I just
followed what we did with OBR and provided our own namespace to
prototype the RFC to avoid any IP/legal issues.
As for the RFC, those changes have not shown up into the latest
document, so I'm waiting for an update so that we can at last discuss
those.
Me too.
-> richard
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 15:57, Richard S. Hall<[email protected]> wrote:
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
