I'd like to release GShell asap. Having more frequent release is imho a good idea (though it's usually easier to say than to do...). GShell is already useful, even if there is still lots of things to do.
On Dec 14, 2007 8:35 PM, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Folks, the majority of the issues (mostly legal muck) and a few small > bugs/improvements have been cleaned up for the 1.0-alpha-1 release of > GShell. > > There is one issue which has been pointed out regarding the 'help' > command, which ATM is less than ideal, but does show the information. > The idea of the 'help' command is to be sort of a combination of 'ls' > and 'man', so that running it with no argument shows the commands > available in the current context, and running with an argument, the > argument is assumed to be a command path, which is resolved and the > help docs for the command are displayed. > > To make this work is a little bit more than a minor change, and I've > planned to get it fixed up for the next version (hopefully in a few > months)... and really, this is a moderately complex command which is > well suited for someone wanting to learn more about how GShell works > to tackle (which another reason why I didn't make it all super-uber- > sexy). > > BUT... I think we really need to get 1.0-alpha-1 released, so it can > be consumed by G 2.1 (as well as other projects which are starting to > use GShell). And IMO, the 'help' commands ugliness is not a big > enough priority to delay the release. > > IMO, GShell is still a work in progress, while quite functional for > many purposes, its still a little rough around the edges and will take > some more love to sift through the issues, flesh out the features and > iron those pesky buggers out. My recommendation is that for G 2.1 > that we don't advertise GShell as a _feature_, but just let it be > ASIS, handling the CLI bits for G and average users won't really know > the difference. Advanced folks might want to play with it, which is > fine (good even to get more feedback), but I don't think that G 2.1 is > the release where we want to unleash this on to the world. > > I would rather let GShell cook... and then simmer for a while longer, > pull in more feedback (as now more folks are starting to be aware of > the framework and are implementing tools with it *yay*), fix up the > architecture, fill in some major holes, write some *real* > documentation, and then hand it to the masses... perhaps in G 2.2. > > Though keep in mind, GShell isn't really Geronimo-specific... its > intended to be a light(ish) framework for building rich command-line > applications. It just so happens that Geronimo needs such a system to > handle its growing cli needs. And GShell's remote login feature makes > it ideal for administrators to use that cli to perform installs, > maintenance, scripts ala BSF or whatever. > > Geronimo is definitely, well... IMO, an ideal candidate for GShell > integration and I really believe that there is a *huge* value add > here. But... before we go telling the world how dope the GShell > integration in Geronimo is... I'd really like to fix some of its warts > and create some documentation. > > * * * > > Anyways, the point of this email is really to ask you folks... can we > live with how GShell works right now for the 1.0-alpha-1 release? Or > are their any blocking issues which *must* be resolved? > > I'd really like to spin up a vote today or tomorrow... so if anyone > has any input... now is the time. > > --jason > > PS. Thanks for those of you who have taken time to play with GShell > and provided feedback. Your input is invaluable and IMO critical to > the growth and success of GShell. So thanks again! > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
