That's what I said: there is not generic standard and the standard in Karaf is the Karaf commands.
My €0.1 Regards JB On Jul 22, 2017, 12:16, at 12:16, Tim Ward <tim.w...@paremus.com> wrote: >Sorry to wind this back a little, but there were a couple of questions >from Tom which got skipped over. > >I'm afraid that when it comes to shells there isn't a standard. There >was an RFC created a long time ago, which roughly represented the work >that is now Gogo. There was a decision at the time that there wasn't a >need for a standard, this decision could be revisited, particularly if >someone wants to drive the work through the Alliance. > >As for the following question: > >>> Originally I thought that Karaf was the "enterprise version of >felix". This doesn't seem to be the case? > >Karaf and Felix may both be hosted at Apache, but Karaf is a totally >separate project from Felix with a very different ethos. Karaf does not >implement an OSGi framework, or OSGi standards, but builds a server >based on OSGi components from a variety of places. > >Karaf is flexible, but ultimately opinionated about libraries and >dictates a number of high level choices. Felix works hard to allow you >to use implementations from anywhere with the standalone components >they produce. > >Karaf is also prepared to invent concepts (e.g. features and kar files) >and not contribute them back to OSGi, leaving them as proprietary >extensions. This even happens when OSGi standards do exist (or are >nearly final). Karaf also promotes non standard (and some non Apache) >programming model extensions. > >While this does, by some measures, make Karaf a "bad" OSGi citizen, it >is also one of the reasons why Karaf is so successful, and helps to >drive OSGi adoption (a very good thing for OSGi). By being opinionated >Karaf can be simpler for new users, even if it provides a more limited >view of what your OSGi options are. The Felix framework, on the other >hand, lets you make all the decisions, but also requires you to make >all the decisions! > >In summary I would describe Karaf as an Open Source OSGi server >runtime, where Felix is more like a base operating system. > >Tim > >Sent from my iPhone > >> On 22 Jul 2017, at 06:44, Christian Schneider ><ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote: >> >> That sounds interesting. Can you point us to the code where those >commands are implemented and where the completion is defined? >> I know there is the completion support that you can define in the >shell init script but I think this is difficult to maintain this way. >> >> Is it now possible to somehow define the completion for gogo commands >per bundle or even by annotations directly on the class? >> >> Christian >> >> 2017-07-21 16:57 GMT+02:00 Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org>: >>> If you look at Karaf >= 4.1.x, a bunch of commands are not coming >from Karaf anymore, but from Gogo or JLine. I moved them when working >on the gogo / jline3 integration. The main point that was blocking >imho is that they did not have completion support. With the new fully >scripted completion system from gogo-jline, gogo commands can have full >completion, so I don't see any blocking points anymore. It's just >about tracking commands and registering them in the karaf shell. >>> >>> 2017-07-21 15:27 GMT+02:00 Christian Schneider ><ch...@die-schneider.net>: >>>>> On 21.07.2017 12:27, t...@quarendon.net wrote: >>>>> Yes, but what's the actual situation from a standards point of >view? >>>>> Is a shell defined by a standard at all? OSGi enroute seems to >require a gogo shell and appears to rely on felix gogo shell command >framework. >>>>> Is it just that Karaf happens to ship a shell that happens to be >based on the felix gogo shell (or perhaps not, but stack traces seem to >suggest so), but that basically if I want to implement a shell command >I have to implement it differently for each shell type? >>>>> >>>>> That seems a poor situation and leaves me with having to implement >one command implementation to be used in the development environment >and one that is used in the karaf deployment. >>>>> >>>>> Originally I thought that Karaf was the "enterprise version of >felix". This doesn't seem to be the case? >>>>> >>>>> There *could* be a really powerful environment and ecosystem here, >if it was all a *little* bit less fragmented :-) >>>> I fully agree that we need to work towards more common approaches. >The OSGi ecosystem is too small to afford being fragmented like this. >>>> We all have the chance and duty to work on improving this though. >>>> >>>> Christian >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Christian Schneider >>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de >>>> >>>> Open Source Architect >>>> http://www.talend.com >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------ >>> Guillaume Nodet >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Christian Schneider >> http://www.liquid-reality.de >> >> Open Source Architect >> http://www.talend.com
