I like rhqctl myself.
Of course, I still do not understand why the .sh extension is used. .sh
indicates that the script is an include or should be passed to a shell
using:
. rhqctl.sh
source rhqctl.sh
Or:
sh rhqctl.sh
bash rhqctl.sh
Where as: "rhqctl" (no extension with execute attribute set) on *nix
allows one to use the same command on Windows and *nix platforms:
Linux:
./rhqctl start
Windows
rhqctl start
And documentation no longer has to say rhqctl.[sh|cmd].
Any way, just one of my pet peeves. :)
--
Larry O'Leary
https://plus.google.com/u/0/112645929986009801513
On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 15:35 -0400, Jay Shaughnessy wrote:
We weren't sure what was best so we're asking for feedback
for naming
the new control stuff. There are currently files (and one property) named:
rhqctl.sh
rhqctl.properties
rhqctl.log
-Drhqctl.properties-file
The abbreviation is obviously shorter, and maybe more attractive to the linux
population.
An alternative would be:
rhqctl.sh --> rhq-control.sh
rhqctl.properties --> rhq-control.properties
rhqctl.log --> rhq-control.log
-Drhqctl.properties-file --> -Drhq.control.properties-file
This is more aligned to much of our current naming.
Please let us know, thanks.