I disagree with your analysis.
I think that whether by luck or deep analysis, Jerome made the right
decisions concerning the need for a redeploy "command".
Eliminating it for 'ease of maintenance' is not a compelling
justification.... especially when there was a working implementation
that was in-place....
vbk
Hong Zhang wrote:
> Hi, Vince
> For the v3 technology preview release last year, Jerome has come
> up with a set of commands which can be used for the most common use
> cases, such as deploy, undeploy. Some of the commands are similar to
> v2 commands and some of the commands are new. Now we are working on
> the official release for v3, one task we have is to maintain backward
> compatibility with v2, and this includes providing the same set of the
> admin cli commands as in v2. And we need to make choices with the cli
> commands that were previously available in v3 preview, but are
> different than the existing v2 cli commands.
> In general, we don't want to keep two set of commands which do
> similar things as it could be confusing to user and also require us to
> do more maintenance. So the default is if there are two similar
> commands, we keep the v2 command syntax. And in some cases, like the
> asadmin redeploy command, as there might still be some value in
> providing the new command, we "alias" it to a similar v2 command
> ("asadmin deploy --force=true") so we only need to maintain one code
> path.
> One thing we need to do but haven't done so (as the command
> implementation is still on going) is to provide a mapping of the v3
> preview commands and the equivalent commands that are currently
> supported in v3. Then we can look at the mapping, and decide what we
> like and what we don't like. And for example, if it's by popular
> demand to have the redeploy command with the "name" option, and not
> the "path", we will try to accommodate that.
> Jane: as the implementation of deployment related commands was just
> completed, can you provide such mapping so people know what to expect
> in v3 technology preview 2 release? And we would still have time to
> accommodate any necessary changes before the code freeze.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Hong
>