Adding or removing options from a SpringShell command may be a bit tricky. This might require two versions of the command -- one version with the option, one without -- and we then load and register only one at runtime.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> wrote: > This is a great start, however, there may be features that only add options > to gfsh commands rather than adding gfsh commands themselves, we should > accommodate those as and when we encounter them. > > Udo, I like the idea of having a more generic solution for feature > flagging, however, if a feature is only introducing public API, I don't see > how we could hide it using an annotation. > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:46 PM Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > I like @Disabled too. > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:02 PM Michael William Dodge < > mdo...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > >> I kind of like @Disabled instead. > >> > >> Sarge > >> > >> > On 19 Mar, 2018, at 11:58, Udo Kohlmeyer <u...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > > >> > I wonder if this proposal could not be extended to the greater GEODE > >> product. As this feature flagging is also relevant to other parts of the > >> system and should maybe be consistently applied to all areas. > >> > > >> > Thoughts? > >> > > >> > > >> > On 3/19/18 11:46, Patrick Rhomberg wrote: > >> >> Hello, All > >> >> > >> >> I am interested in extending annotation functionality on our gfsh > >> >> commands, particularly with respect to feature-flagging commands that > >> are > >> >> mutually-reliant or not yet feature complete. > >> >> Please review the proposal [1] at your convenience. > >> >> > >> >> Imagination is Change. > >> >> ~Patrick Rhomberg > >> >> > >> >> [1] > >> >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/ > Proposal+for+Gfsh+Feature+Flag > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> >
