I can't remember and don't understand all the conversation from the emails below but I thought that if you pulled in the new code from Guillaume then you could make karaf and gogo more compatible. I thought the issue was it required java8 but from my understanding the next release of karaf after 4.0.4 was going to require java8 anyway for the pax-web jetty 9.3 stuff.
On 11/3/15, 2:31 PM, "Frank Langel" <fr...@frankjlangel.com> wrote: > Agreed. But which way to go a) back port the Karaf one? B) the new console > version by Guillaume Nodet Best Frank On 11/3/15, 2:26 PM, "David Bosschaert" > <david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I always wondered why the 'fork' of gogo that's in Karaf was never >> contributed back into Felix? I think that it is much better in terms of >> usability (completion, colours) and it would be nice if it could be used by >> the Felix framework as well, i.e. be shipped as the default shell >> implementation with the Felix download... Any thoughts? Cheers, David On 3 >> November 2015 at 14:15, Frank Langel <fr...@frankjlangel.com> wrote: > Awesome, I try it out On 11/3/15, 1:37 PM, "Guillaume Nodet" > <gno...@apache.org> wrote: I've been improving JLine, Gogo Runtime and wrote > a new module for JLine + > Gogo, similar to gogo-shell, but with tighter integration. Feel free to have > a look at it if you want. You'll have to build > https://github.com/jline/jline2/tree/jline3 [1] and > https://github.com/gnodet/felix/tree/trunk-jline/gogo [2] Inside the gogo > dir, you can launch the shell using: java -cp On 2015-12-01 14:02, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Honestly, I disagree about the Karaf commands: currently Karaf commands and > shell are way more powerful and better than Felix gogo. > > Don't be too harsh and remember that, for lot of us, Karaf brings us in OSGi, > shell, etc. I always remember where I come from ;) > > Regards > JB > > On 12/01/2015 07:28 AM, Christian Schneider wrote: > Am 01.12.2015 um 05:55 schrieb David Leangen: So as you see it is not the > build system. I would be interested how you do all the things above without > the maven repo. I get the feeling that you are comparing apples to smoothies. > The apple is the actual repository, i.e. convention as to where and how the > data is stored, while the smoothie is what you do with it. I think that OBR > is a more advanced apple than maven, but nobody has really developed the > smoothie yet, so maven has the better smoothie. You seem more interested in > the smoothie, maybe. (Ok, bad metaphor??) Since maven is so widely adopted, > it would be foolish to ignore. That is not what I am suggesting. However, I > think it would not be wise to force Karaf users into the maven world, either. You are right. For OSGi we need a repository with support for OSGi metadata. Only then can we use the resolver in an efficient way. I think an OBR like Cave is the wrong approach though. It want to index the whole repository which does not work on the scale of maven repos.... especially not for maven central. I think the nice middle ground is using the maven indexer plugin the Tim Ward created. I plan to use this plugin in the build process of the apache projects (per project and per version). So for example hibernate 5.0.0 would create an index with all the bundles it needs. This index is then stored in the maven repository as a file. So this has two advantages. 1. The index does not have any conflicting bundles 2. The index is small and easy to handle. So I think this has the potential to combine the advantages of maven and obr. > I really like the way that Karaf has handled blueprint vs. DS. Kara itself is > based in part on blueprint, but I am not forced to use it. This, I do not > mind at all. Even when I list the current bundles, by default I don't even > have to look at the stuff installed behind the scenes. I was initially > worried about all the "stuff" getting installed, but I have relaxed a bit. > For Karaf commands, also at first I was not happy that it forced me to > decided "either or" simple gogo commands or Karaf commands. However, the > commands really are nice. I think somebody should push to have completes and > all the other nice stuff added to the OSGi spec. Fully agree. I was never a fan of the karaf command style. The felix ones are much nicer in regard to OSGi services and we should bring them en part with the karaf style and support both styles in karaf. It would also be great to then put the enhancement into a spec. I would really like to see commands that are then usable in karaf but also in plain OSGi frameworks or even outside OSGi. There is no reason why all of these must be different. Christian Links: ------ [1] https://github.com/jline/jline2/tree/jline3 [2] https://github.com/gnodet/felix/tree/trunk-jline/gogo
