This is a great start, however, there may be features that only add options to gfsh commands rather than adding gfsh commands themselves, we should accommodate those as and when we encounter them.
Udo, I like the idea of having a more generic solution for feature flagging, however, if a feature is only introducing public API, I don't see how we could hide it using an annotation. On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:46 PM Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> wrote: > I like @Disabled too. > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:02 PM Michael William Dodge <mdo...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >> I kind of like @Disabled instead. >> >> Sarge >> >> > On 19 Mar, 2018, at 11:58, Udo Kohlmeyer <u...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > I wonder if this proposal could not be extended to the greater GEODE >> product. As this feature flagging is also relevant to other parts of the >> system and should maybe be consistently applied to all areas. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> > >> > On 3/19/18 11:46, Patrick Rhomberg wrote: >> >> Hello, All >> >> >> >> I am interested in extending annotation functionality on our gfsh >> >> commands, particularly with respect to feature-flagging commands that >> are >> >> mutually-reliant or not yet feature complete. >> >> Please review the proposal [1] at your convenience. >> >> >> >> Imagination is Change. >> >> ~Patrick Rhomberg >> >> >> >> [1] >> >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Proposal+for+Gfsh+Feature+Flag >> >> >> > >> >>
