+1 to a rewrite. I'd considered this option when working on WinRM, but didn't have time to give it a try
In the longer term it will probably also provide other benefits in our WinRM offering, including stability, security and reliability of exit codes Cheers M On 12 Oct 2015 17:41, "Aled Sage" <[email protected]> wrote: > If a pure-java re-write of winrm4j will make our life significantly easier > for OSGi'fying Apache Brooklyn, then yes. > > But if it's going to be a lot more effort to rewrite it, then we should > live with it for now. > > --- > My gut feel is that a rewrite won't be that hard, given we have the > reference implementation in Python. > > We also have pretty good live-test coverage for various different scripts > (I'm copying what we have in Brooklyn WinrmMachineLocationLiveTest into the > winrm4j repo). > > Aled > > p.s. we are trying to get the OSGi stuff done within the next couple of > weeks, to include it in a 0.9.0 release. > > > On 12/10/2015 17:25, Valentin Aitken wrote: > >> +1 >> However exactly because it is just 822 it is really not a problem that it >> is a python code. >> We are using it intensively and we didn't hit any problems still. >> >> So I vote to do it but later. >> >> Valentin >> >> On 10/12/2015 07:20 PM, Richard Downer wrote: >> >>> // new subject, was [PROPOSAL] Split brooklyn-core during OSGification >>> >>> The core code of PyWinRM (i.e. excluding tests) is 822 lines of code. >>> I know that Java line counts tend to explode, but I'm thinking that >>> maybe creating a Java implementation of the WinRM client is not such a >>> horrible task as I thought it perhaps was. Doing this would mean that >>> we could drop the Jython dependency. It's a disproportionately large >>> dependency for the value it gives us. >>> >>> https://github.com/diyan/pywinrm/tree/master/winrm >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12 October 2015 at 17:14, Alex Heneveld >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> We should move winrm/jython to a new project in any case. Many users >>>> will >>>> want to exclude that bundle. >>>> >>>> I suggest software/winrm/ folder brooklyn-software-winrm project. >>>> >>>> --A >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/10/2015 17:59, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think we'll need to split the core in multiple parts actually. I am >>>>> having a bit of trouble myself with winrm4j. The complication is that >>>>> it >>>>> depends on jython, which does not provide an OSGi bundle either. I am >>>>> not >>>>> sure for instance if winrm4j is always necessary or it could be another >>>>> core-ish bundle. >>>>> >>>>> A second thought is that I don't know what the impact on current users >>>>> would be to move the current use of the OSGi framework in a different >>>>> jar. >>>>> One possibility is to split the core into multiple jar, following a >>>>> convention we can agree upon (brooklyn-rt-* would be a common >>>>> convention), >>>>> but then let what Cipi called brooklyn-rt-felix, keep the current name >>>>> brooklyn-core. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Hadrian >>>>> >>>> >> >> > -- Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230. Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
