I've been playing with
jboss as7 cli and like to share my experience. I
understand that in AS7-2310, it was renamed from jboss-admin.sh to
jboss-cli.sh, so a second renaming seems disruptive, but anyway here it
goes...
First, can we remove the .sh file extension? Tools like ant, mvn and
groovy are all shell scripts but do not have the .sh extension. Users
just need to execute it, without concerning if it is written as a shell
script to binary. Having the .sh extension limits ourselves in impl
options. On Windows we continue to have .bat, which is unavoidable, but
users just need to run "jboss-cli" with .bat extension.
jboss-cli.sh is quite some typing for users, and the first TAB
completion will not enough. It takes 2 tabs to complete jboss-cli.sh
Secondly, can we remove the -cli part to further simplify the name? It
seems to be superfluous as many terminal commands are cli. IMO, a name
needs to reflect the purpose of the tool, rather than its form. By
having -cli in the name, we are again restricting it to be a cli tool.
But didn't we have a GUI form that can be launched by 'jboss-cli.sh --gui'?
I personally like the old name jboss-admin.sh better, except that it's
too long.
Cheng
_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
jboss-as7-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
understand that in AS7-2310, it was renamed from jboss-admin.sh to
jboss-cli.sh, so a second renaming seems disruptive, but anyway here it
goes...
First, can we remove the .sh file extension? Tools like ant, mvn and
groovy are all shell scripts but do not have the .sh extension. Users
just need to execute it, without concerning if it is written as a shell
script to binary. Having the .sh extension limits ourselves in impl
options. On Windows we continue to have .bat, which is unavoidable, but
users just need to run "jboss-cli" with .bat extension.
jboss-cli.sh is quite some typing for users, and the first TAB
completion will not enough. It takes 2 tabs to complete jboss-cli.sh
Secondly, can we remove the -cli part to further simplify the name? It
seems to be superfluous as many terminal commands are cli. IMO, a name
needs to reflect the purpose of the tool, rather than its form. By
having -cli in the name, we are again restricting it to be a cli tool.
But didn't we have a GUI form that can be launched by 'jboss-cli.sh --gui'?
I personally like the old name jboss-admin.sh better, except that it's
too long.
Cheng
_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
jboss-as7-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev