11:26 a.m.
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
1:25 p.m.
On 8/31/2012 12:26 PM, Cheng Fang wrote:
But didn't we have a GUI form that can be launched by
'jboss-cli.sh --gui'?
Yes. It's still there. Is it not working for
you?
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(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
6:46 a.m.
On 08/31/2012 06:26 PM, Cheng Fang wrote:
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.
No objections from me.
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'?
Removing -cli part would create more confusion, imo. The meaning behind
jboss-cli is "command-line interface [management tool] for jboss [server
or domain]". If it's just 'jboss' then I can imagine doubts "does it
start jboss, i.e. the server?" or something like that.
We could call it as-cli. Or if somebody has a better idea...
I personally like the old name jboss-admin.sh better, except that
it's
too long.
Thanks,
Alexey
Cheng
_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
6:55 a.m.
If we think about scripts and renaming ...
What about a script "jboss" that cover all other
- "jboss cli" call in fact jboss-cli*
- "jboss start [standalone | domain]" to start a instance
- "jboss stop" find out what is started and stop it
- "jboss user ...... " to add user
and so on .....
On 09/03/2012 01:46 PM, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
On 08/31/2012 06:26 PM, Cheng Fang wrote:
> 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.
No objections from me.
> 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'?
Removing -cli part would create more confusion, imo. The meaning behind
jboss-cli is "command-line interface [management tool] for jboss [server
or domain]". If it's just 'jboss' then I can imagine doubts "does
it
start jboss, i.e. the server?" or something like that.
We could call it as-cli. Or if somebody has a better idea...
> I personally like the old name jboss-admin.sh better, except that it's
> too long.
Thanks,
Alexey
> Cheng
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>
_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
--
Red Hat GmbH
Technopark II, Building 1
Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 11-15
85630 Grasbrunn
Germany
Email: wfink(a)redhat.com
________________________________________________________________________
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 153243
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Mark Hegarty, Charlie Peters, Michael Cunningham, Charles Cachera
9:58 a.m.
On 9/3/12 7:55 AM, Wolf-Dieter Fink wrote:
If we think about scripts and renaming ...
What about a script "jboss" that cover all other
- "jboss cli" call in fact jboss-cli*
- "jboss start [standalone | domain]" to start a instance
- "jboss stop" find out what is started and stop it
- "jboss user ...... " to add user
and so on .....
This is exactly what I'm thinking of, but didn't want to bring them all
at once. I'd like to see a consolidated set of scripts, by merging them
into jboss-cli (or some other name).
Cheng
On 09/03/2012 01:46 PM, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
> On 08/31/2012 06:26 PM, Cheng Fang wrote:
>> 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.
> No objections from me.
>
>> 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'?
> Removing -cli part would create more confusion, imo. The meaning behind
> jboss-cli is "command-line interface [management tool] for jboss [server
> or domain]". If it's just 'jboss' then I can imagine doubts
"does it
> start jboss, i.e. the server?" or something like that.
> We could call it as-cli. Or if somebody has a better idea...
>
>> I personally like the old name jboss-admin.sh better, except that it's
>> too long.
> Thanks,
> Alexey
>
>> Cheng
>> _______________________________________________
>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
2:08 p.m.
On 9/3/2012 7:46 AM, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
On 08/31/2012 06:26 PM, Cheng Fang wrote:
> 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.
No objections from me.
One thing you need to think about is the fact that this
triggers lots of
documentation changes for what I see as little or no benefit. As a
Windows user, I rather like it when I see .sh. It lets me know that
file is not for me.
As for impl options, I would think that the time for a rename would be
such time as we decided to change the impl. What is to be gained by
doing it now?
> 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'?
Removing -cli part would create more confusion, imo. The meaning behind
jboss-cli is "command-line interface [management tool] for jboss [server
or domain]". If it's just 'jboss' then I can imagine doubts "does
it
start jboss, i.e. the server?" or something like that.
We could call it as-cli. Or if somebody has a better idea...
Again, I'm for
leaving it alone.
> I personally like the old name jboss-admin.sh better, except that it's
> too long.
Thanks,
Alexey
> Cheng
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>
_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
5:14 p.m.
I don't think this is worth it. Any change like this at this point is
going to break users existing scripts, for no real benefit.
I also don't really think that two tab completions are to many, and if
someone is using it enough that it is an annoyance they can just create
an alias anyway.
Stuart
Cheng Fang <mailto:cfang@redhat.com>
1 September 2012 2:26 AM
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(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
10:10 a.m.
Agreed. Changing the name of this script would require changes to docs,
courseware, knowledge base articles, demos, etc.
Plus, the name change from jboss-admin.sh came out of a big usability
workshop we had with people from all over Red Hat. So changing it again
would IMO require a big discussion.
I launch the CLI via
./jb<tab><enter>
From the root, this is fine too:
bin/jb<tab><enter>
On 9/3/12 5:14 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
I don't think this is worth it. Any change like this at this
point is
going to break users existing scripts, for no real benefit.
I also don't really think that two tab completions are to many, and if
someone is using it enough that it is an annoyance they can just create
an alias anyway.
Stuart
> Cheng Fang <mailto:cfang@redhat.com>
> 1 September 2012 2:26 AM
> 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(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
--
Brian Stansberry
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat
10:35 a.m.
JBoss has never been shy in breaking user's configuration files and
script files (and the core of the underlying container technology and
classloading architecture, etc.) We are quite used to it.
The naming scheme of
jboss-cli.bat
jboss-cli.sh
goes against portability of skills across platforms and therefore
against usability. For it allows the Windows user to issue the command
with a plain
jboss-cli
while forces the Unix user to issue the command with
jboss-cli.sh
At least drop the .sh suffix. It won't hurt more than the class loader
infrastructure changes that you guys throw at us every few years.
--
Weiqi Gao
weiqigao(a)speakeasy.net
http://www.weiqigao.com/blog/
On 09/04/2012 10:10 AM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
Agreed. Changing the name of this script would require changes to
docs,
courseware, knowledge base articles, demos, etc.
Plus, the name change from jboss-admin.sh came out of a big usability
workshop we had with people from all over Red Hat. So changing it again
would IMO require a big discussion.
I launch the CLI via
./jb<tab><enter>
From the root, this is fine too:
bin/jb<tab><enter>
On 9/3/12 5:14 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
> I don't think this is worth it. Any change like this at this point is
> going to break users existing scripts, for no real benefit.
>
> I also don't really think that two tab completions are to many, and if
> someone is using it enough that it is an annoyance they can just create
> an alias anyway.
>
> Stuart
>
>> Cheng Fang <mailto:cfang@redhat.com>
>> 1 September 2012 2:26 AM
>> 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(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>
10:39 a.m.
I don't have any objection to making such a change in AS 8. In AS 7,
it's IMHO just not worth it.
On 9/4/12 10:35 AM, Weiqi Gao wrote:
JBoss has never been shy in breaking user's configuration files
and
script files (and the core of the underlying container technology and
classloading architecture, etc.) We are quite used to it.
The naming scheme of
jboss-cli.bat
jboss-cli.sh
goes against portability of skills across platforms and therefore
against usability. For it allows the Windows user to issue the command
with a plain
jboss-cli
while forces the Unix user to issue the command with
jboss-cli.sh
At least drop the .sh suffix. It won't hurt more than the class loader
infrastructure changes that you guys throw at us every few years.
--
Weiqi Gao
weiqigao(a)speakeasy.net
http://www.weiqigao.com/blog/
On 09/04/2012 10:10 AM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> Agreed. Changing the name of this script would require changes to docs,
> courseware, knowledge base articles, demos, etc.
>
> Plus, the name change from jboss-admin.sh came out of a big usability
> workshop we had with people from all over Red Hat. So changing it again
> would IMO require a big discussion.
>
> I launch the CLI via
>
> ./jb<tab><enter>
>
> From the root, this is fine too:
>
> bin/jb<tab><enter>
>
> On 9/3/12 5:14 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>> I don't think this is worth it. Any change like this at this point is
>> going to break users existing scripts, for no real benefit.
>>
>> I also don't really think that two tab completions are to many, and if
>> someone is using it enough that it is an annoyance they can just create
>> an alias anyway.
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>>> Cheng Fang <mailto:cfang@redhat.com>
>>> 1 September 2012 2:26 AM
>>> 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(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
--
Brian Stansberry
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat
4266
days inactive
4270
days old
9 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Alexey Loubyansky -
Brian Stansberry -
Cheng Fang -
ssilvert＠redhat.com -
Stuart Douglas -
Weiqi Gao -
Wolf-Dieter Fink