[jbossws-dev] To SH or not to SH

[Jason T. Greene]

Also, just for the heck of it, I did a quick scan of shell scripts on
fedora:
# No .sh ending
/usr/bin $ ls | xargs file | grep -i shell | grep -v \\.sh | wc -l
252 

# .sh ending
/usr/bin $ ls | xargs file | grep -i shell | grep \\.sh | wc -l
8

-Jason

On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 23:40 -0600, Jason T. Greene wrote:
> Ok I am mostly convinced, although ant doesn't use ".sh"
> 
> On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 23:32 -0600, Alejandro Guízar wrote:
> > Ant and countless other software uses .sh as well. When you see the .sh 
> > extension you immediately knows what the contents of the file are. The 
> > same does not apply to a file without extension.
> > 
> > I'd go for keeping .sh.
> > 
> > -Alejandro
> > 
> > Jason T. Greene wrote:
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > > 
> > > I was planning on dropping the sh extension for JAX-WS tools. The reason
> > > is so that the same command works for all platforms. This works since on
> > > windows you don't need to type the .bat extension to execute the script.
> > > However everything else in jboss uses .sh, and the old tools use .sh. So
> > > perhaps it's bad to break convention.
> > > 
> > > How do you want to do this?
> > > 
> > > -Jason
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > jbossws-dev mailing list
> > > jbossws-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossws-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jbossws-dev mailing list
> jbossws-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossws-dev