You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org> on 2008/06/23 17:53:15 UTC
Telnet bundle
Hello everyone,
I have been meaning to ask about this for a while (perhaps I already
did), is there any interest in bring the old telnet bundle into Felix? I
still use this bundle occasionally. It is dependent upon telnetd, which
is released under BSD (I see there is now telnetd2, which is still under
a BSD-like license). So, it seems do-able.
Thoughts?
-> richard
RE: Telnet bundle
Posted by Craig Phillips <lc...@praxiseng.com>.
Hi,
Been a bit of a struggle on my end... Some background, from most recent...
- The existing telnetd bundle source will not build with telnetd2 (wimpi) nor, walking backwards, telnetd1.0b4... Got close with telnetd1.0b4, by making 'io.toolkit.Editline' a public class, but the shell is not compiling due to missing methods...
- If I shutdown the bundle, the listen socket is still bound
# Note that the bundle DOES invoke shutdown() of dtw.telnetD which subsequently calls shutdown on 'myListener', but to no avail;
- Needless to say, I can not embed a felix container with this functionality as it stands, as a subsequent restart of the container gets a socket bind failure on port 6623 (the property specified listen port) as it's currently bound to a defunct container;
Hence, it looks like it would be a bit of work to upgrade the existing telnetd bundle code to, for sake of argument, wimpi.telnetd2...
In the short run, I'm willing to simply fix the socket listener problem, but I am still backtracking to find the dtw.telnetD source that will build with the telnetd bundle... I'm about to get dtw.telnetd.1.0b3 next...
Appreciate the interest... I find the feature to be a useful tool... I don't necessarily need the 'ssh' stuff as I'm sort of telnet'ing from the same box from whence the container is run... IMO, there are other ways of defeating the lax in security (e.g., firewall) -- meaning, I ssh to the box and telnet to the container from there... easy enough and secure enough (IMO)... I'm only interested in the [more than] rudimentary console for which the bundle provides... I get a lot of useful mileage out of the telnetd bundle...
Thanks, much appreciative, Craig Phillips, Praxis Engineering..
From: Richard S. Hall
Sent: Mon 6/23/2008 12:23 PM
To: dev@felix.apache.org; lcphillips@praxiseng.com
Subject: Re: Telnet bundle
Yeah, your message was the instigator for my message. :-)
-> richard
Rob Walker wrote:
> Richard
>
> I've been swapping emails with Craig Philips today - who seems to be
> using it.
>
> Not sure if Craig is on the dev list, so have CC'd him here and will
> fwd the last correspondence we had
>
> Regards
>
> -- Rob
>
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I have been meaning to ask about this for a while (perhaps I already
>> did), is there any interest in bring the old telnet bundle into
>> Felix? I still use this bundle occasionally. It is dependent upon
>> telnetd, which is released under BSD (I see there is now telnetd2,
>> which is still under a BSD-like license). So, it seems do-able.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -> richard
>
Re: Telnet bundle
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Yeah, your message was the instigator for my message. :-)
-> richard
Rob Walker wrote:
> Richard
>
> I've been swapping emails with Craig Philips today - who seems to be
> using it.
>
> Not sure if Craig is on the dev list, so have CC'd him here and will
> fwd the last correspondence we had
>
> Regards
>
> -- Rob
>
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I have been meaning to ask about this for a while (perhaps I already
>> did), is there any interest in bring the old telnet bundle into
>> Felix? I still use this bundle occasionally. It is dependent upon
>> telnetd, which is released under BSD (I see there is now telnetd2,
>> which is still under a BSD-like license). So, it seems do-able.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -> richard
>
Re: Telnet bundle
Posted by Rob Walker <ro...@ascert.com>.
Richard
I've been swapping emails with Craig Philips today - who seems to be
using it.
Not sure if Craig is on the dev list, so have CC'd him here and will fwd
the last correspondence we had
Regards
-- Rob
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have been meaning to ask about this for a while (perhaps I already
> did), is there any interest in bring the old telnet bundle into Felix?
> I still use this bundle occasionally. It is dependent upon telnetd,
> which is released under BSD (I see there is now telnetd2, which is
> still under a BSD-like license). So, it seems do-able.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -> richard
--
Ascert - Taking systems to the Edge
robw@ascert.com
+44 (0)20 7488 3470
www.ascert.com
Re: Telnet bundle
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Richard S. Hall schrieb:
> Dieter Wimberger wrote:
>>> Dieter Wimberger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Actually I am the author of the project, so we can discuss it right
>>>> here; and if you are interested, I guess we can also manage to
>>>> release it under Apache 2 license (except the external SSH library,
>>>> which is under a BSD license).
>>>
>>> Interesting. Didn't know you were here. :-)
>>
>> I am ;)
>>
>> I was already was giving Felix a hard time, because I was trying to
>> port to felix and do configuration tasks with the webconsole.
>
> Excellent. It is always good to give Felix [Meschberger] a hard time. ;-)
Yeah, yeah ;-)
Regards
Felix Meschberger
Re: Telnet bundle
Posted by Didier Donsez <di...@imag.fr>.
+1 too
Didier
Karl Pauls wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>>Dieter Wimberger schrieb:
>>
>>
>>>Richard:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Felix console is the easiest part, I believe, since most of the work
>>>>is done by the shell service.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Ok. Honestly I don't know, so I could not tell.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What is the scope of (1), i.e., what functionality is included in it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>At the moment that would be:
>>>- Telnet
>>>- SSH2 (based on Jaramiko)
>>>- Poolable shells (based on commons-pool)
>>>- Template based output (based on Stringtemplate/Antlr, uses XML files to
>>>store the templates)
>>>- Scriptshell (based on Beanshell)
>>>
>>>Jaramiko is currently embedded, the bundle is around 360 kB (160 are from
>>>jaramiko).
>>>There is also a dependency on commons-collections (buffers and cursorable
>>>linked list) and SLF4J (logging);
>>>
>>>
>>I for my part would of course love to see this in Apache Felix ! But I think
>>it is perfectly worth it to keep it where it is (to spread the word and
>>community around OSGi).
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>2 should live at felix (Apache) and may be derived from the old
>>>>>codebase. If you point me to a codebase I could get started from, I can
>>>>>invest some time to port and make it working with the newer telnetd codebase
>>>>>(i.e. 1).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Makes sense and, as I said, it is pretty simple.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I'll investigate a bit later to see if I can get it up and running in a
>>>felix container instance. I also try to make a short circuit with Craig to
>>>get this on the road.
>>>
>>>
>>+1 to get this into Felix
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>I think that your group/committee should decide if you want to get 1 and
>>>>>2 or just 2 into the felix project. Either way I'd be doing as much as I
>>>>>can; it's a long term interest (because the online community I am a part of
>>>>>since years will switch soon, and we will continue to use the codebase in a
>>>>>production environment; all OSGi btw.).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Ok, great. We will see what others have to say. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>As I said, I am all for having (2) in Apache Felix and would warmly welcome
>>(1) in Felix, too, if the licenses of the used libraries are ok.
>>
>>
>
>+1
>
>regards,
>
>Karl
>
>
>
>
>>Regards
>>Felix
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Didier DONSEZ
Laboratoire LIG, Equipe ADELE
Universite Joseph Fourier
Bat. C, 220 rue de la Chimie, Domaine Universitaire
BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France
Tel : +33 4 76 63 55 49 Fax : +33 4 76 63 55 50
GPS : lat 45°11'38.3"N, lon 05°46'14.7"E, alt 223m
mailto:Didier.Donsez@imag.fr
URL: http://www-adele.imag.fr/users/Didier.Donsez
Map: http://www-adele.imag.fr/users/Didier.Donsez/map/map.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Telnet bundle
Posted by Karl Pauls <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Dieter Wimberger schrieb:
>>
>> Richard:
>>
>>> The Felix console is the easiest part, I believe, since most of the work
>>> is done by the shell service.
>>
>> Ok. Honestly I don't know, so I could not tell.
>>
>>> What is the scope of (1), i.e., what functionality is included in it.
>>
>> At the moment that would be:
>> - Telnet
>> - SSH2 (based on Jaramiko)
>> - Poolable shells (based on commons-pool)
>> - Template based output (based on Stringtemplate/Antlr, uses XML files to
>> store the templates)
>> - Scriptshell (based on Beanshell)
>>
>> Jaramiko is currently embedded, the bundle is around 360 kB (160 are from
>> jaramiko).
>> There is also a dependency on commons-collections (buffers and cursorable
>> linked list) and SLF4J (logging);
>
> I for my part would of course love to see this in Apache Felix ! But I think
> it is perfectly worth it to keep it where it is (to spread the word and
> community around OSGi).
>
>>
>>>
>>>> 2 should live at felix (Apache) and may be derived from the old
>>>> codebase. If you point me to a codebase I could get started from, I can
>>>> invest some time to port and make it working with the newer telnetd codebase
>>>> (i.e. 1).
>>>
>>> Makes sense and, as I said, it is pretty simple.
>>
>> I'll investigate a bit later to see if I can get it up and running in a
>> felix container instance. I also try to make a short circuit with Craig to
>> get this on the road.
>
> +1 to get this into Felix
>
>>
>>>> I think that your group/committee should decide if you want to get 1 and
>>>> 2 or just 2 into the felix project. Either way I'd be doing as much as I
>>>> can; it's a long term interest (because the online community I am a part of
>>>> since years will switch soon, and we will continue to use the codebase in a
>>>> production environment; all OSGi btw.).
>>>
>>> Ok, great. We will see what others have to say. Thanks.
>
> As I said, I am all for having (2) in Apache Felix and would warmly welcome
> (1) in Felix, too, if the licenses of the used libraries are ok.
+1
regards,
Karl
> Regards
> Felix
>
--
Karl Pauls
karlpauls@gmail.com
Re: Telnet bundle
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Dieter Wimberger schrieb:
> Richard:
>
>> The Felix console is the easiest part, I believe, since most of the
>> work is done by the shell service.
>
> Ok. Honestly I don't know, so I could not tell.
>
>> What is the scope of (1), i.e., what functionality is included in it.
>
> At the moment that would be:
> - Telnet
> - SSH2 (based on Jaramiko)
> - Poolable shells (based on commons-pool)
> - Template based output (based on Stringtemplate/Antlr, uses XML files
> to store the templates)
> - Scriptshell (based on Beanshell)
>
> Jaramiko is currently embedded, the bundle is around 360 kB (160 are
> from jaramiko).
> There is also a dependency on commons-collections (buffers and
> cursorable linked list) and SLF4J (logging);
I for my part would of course love to see this in Apache Felix ! But I
think it is perfectly worth it to keep it where it is (to spread the
word and community around OSGi).
>
>>
>>> 2 should live at felix (Apache) and may be derived from the old
>>> codebase. If you point me to a codebase I could get started from, I
>>> can invest some time to port and make it working with the newer
>>> telnetd codebase (i.e. 1).
>>
>> Makes sense and, as I said, it is pretty simple.
>
> I'll investigate a bit later to see if I can get it up and running in a
> felix container instance. I also try to make a short circuit with Craig
> to get this on the road.
+1 to get this into Felix
>
>>> I think that your group/committee should decide if you want to get 1
>>> and 2 or just 2 into the felix project. Either way I'd be doing as
>>> much as I can; it's a long term interest (because the online
>>> community I am a part of since years will switch soon, and we will
>>> continue to use the codebase in a production environment; all OSGi
>>> btw.).
>>
>> Ok, great. We will see what others have to say. Thanks.
As I said, I am all for having (2) in Apache Felix and would warmly
welcome (1) in Felix, too, if the licenses of the used libraries are ok.
Regards
Felix
Re: Telnet bundle
Posted by Dieter Wimberger <di...@wimpi.net>.
Richard:
> The Felix console is the easiest part, I believe, since most of the
> work is done by the shell service.
Ok. Honestly I don't know, so I could not tell.
> What is the scope of (1), i.e., what functionality is included in it.
At the moment that would be:
- Telnet
- SSH2 (based on Jaramiko)
- Poolable shells (based on commons-pool)
- Template based output (based on Stringtemplate/Antlr, uses XML files
to store the templates)
- Scriptshell (based on Beanshell)
Jaramiko is currently embedded, the bundle is around 360 kB (160 are
from jaramiko).
There is also a dependency on commons-collections (buffers and
cursorable linked list) and SLF4J (logging);
>
>> 2 should live at felix (Apache) and may be derived from the old
>> codebase. If you point me to a codebase I could get started from, I
>> can invest some time to port and make it working with the newer
>> telnetd codebase (i.e. 1).
>
> Makes sense and, as I said, it is pretty simple.
I'll investigate a bit later to see if I can get it up and running in
a felix container instance. I also try to make a short circuit with
Craig to get this on the road.
>> I think that your group/committee should decide if you want to get
>> 1 and 2 or just 2 into the felix project. Either way I'd be doing
>> as much as I can; it's a long term interest (because the online
>> community I am a part of since years will switch soon, and we will
>> continue to use the codebase in a production environment; all OSGi
>> btw.).
>
> Ok, great. We will see what others have to say. Thanks.
>
Great.
Regards,
Dieter
Re: Telnet bundle
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Dieter Wimberger wrote:
> Richard:
>
>> Interesting. So, you would say that it definitely would be a
>> replacement for the telnetd bundle at oscar-osgi.sf.net then? Sounds
>> like it.
>
> I think it would be missing the shell that provides the OSGi console
> part. However, it would be the better codebase to start from (because
> I have fixed, extended and worked on it for a while longer; and we
> have it in use for a while at Coalevo).
The Felix console is the easiest part, I believe, since most of the work
is done by the shell service.
>> Sounds good. Well, if you are planning on developing this on your
>> end, then it is not unreasonable to just let you go about your
>> business and do it (i.e., the bundle portion of your work doesn't
>> have to be done here). However, if there is sufficient interest in
>> moving the bundle aspects here as a subproject, then it could also be
>> considered.
>
> I am developing this mainly for a community platform I am working on
> (that would be Coalevo), where we are trying to preserve a shell
> access similar to old style BBS systems.
>
> For your needs, I suppose that there is currently too much
> functionality and too many additional dependencies, so maybe we should
> make a split approach and coordinate it:
> 1) a base bundle of telnetd-osgi, providing all functionality that the
> felix project would be interested in
> 2) a shell bundle that provides the OSGi console for felix.
>
> 1 could live either at felix (Apache) or at Coalevo (I prefer the
> legal backup for the license); in both cases it will be released under
> Apache 2 License. I would need input to know the requirements, and if
> we want to go Maven, some help (haven't worked much with it yet).
What is the scope of (1), i.e., what functionality is included in it?
> 2 should live at felix (Apache) and may be derived from the old
> codebase. If you point me to a codebase I could get started from, I
> can invest some time to port and make it working with the newer
> telnetd codebase (i.e. 1).
Makes sense and, as I said, it is pretty simple.
> I think that your group/committee should decide if you want to get 1
> and 2 or just 2 into the felix project. Either way I'd be doing as
> much as I can; it's a long term interest (because the online community
> I am a part of since years will switch soon, and we will continue to
> use the codebase in a production environment; all OSGi btw.).
Ok, great. We will see what others have to say. Thanks.
-> richard
>
> Regards,
> Dieter
Re: Telnet bundle
Posted by Dieter Wimberger <di...@wimpi.net>.
Richard:
> Interesting. So, you would say that it definitely would be a
> replacement for the telnetd bundle at oscar-osgi.sf.net then? Sounds
> like it.
I think it would be missing the shell that provides the OSGi console
part. However, it would be the better codebase to start from (because
I have fixed, extended and worked on it for a while longer; and we
have it in use for a while at Coalevo).
> Sounds good. Well, if you are planning on developing this on your
> end, then it is not unreasonable to just let you go about your
> business and do it (i.e., the bundle portion of your work doesn't
> have to be done here). However, if there is sufficient interest in
> moving the bundle aspects here as a subproject, then it could also
> be considered.
I am developing this mainly for a community platform I am working on
(that would be Coalevo), where we are trying to preserve a shell
access similar to old style BBS systems.
For your needs, I suppose that there is currently too much
functionality and too many additional dependencies, so maybe we should
make a split approach and coordinate it:
1) a base bundle of telnetd-osgi, providing all functionality that the
felix project would be interested in
2) a shell bundle that provides the OSGi console for felix.
1 could live either at felix (Apache) or at Coalevo (I prefer the
legal backup for the license); in both cases it will be released under
Apache 2 License. I would need input to know the requirements, and if
we want to go Maven, some help (haven't worked much with it yet).
2 should live at felix (Apache) and may be derived from the old
codebase. If you point me to a codebase I could get started from, I
can invest some time to port and make it working with the newer
telnetd codebase (i.e. 1).
I think that your group/committee should decide if you want to get 1
and 2 or just 2 into the felix project. Either way I'd be doing as
much as I can; it's a long term interest (because the online community
I am a part of since years will switch soon, and we will continue to
use the codebase in a production environment; all OSGi btw.).
Regards,
Dieter
Re: Telnet bundle
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Richard S. Hall schrieb:
> Dieter Wimberger wrote:
>> The language level I currently use is Java 1.3. In comparison to the
>> older codebase, it may not run on very small embedded systems that are
>> often Java 1 (if at all).
>>
>> I took this decision, because I needed SSH and the library I found
>> (latest version is released under MIT license;
>> http://www.lag.net/paramiko/java) needs 1.3.
>
> I would think that Java 1.3 would be fine as far as I am concerned. Others?
>
>> I guess it would be possible to get some things that are overhead out
>> of the codebase and add them as extensions (e.g. Templates based on
>> antlr and stringtemplates, Beanshell based shell, text editors etc.).
>> It all depends on the requirements and the functionality you would
>> like to see.
>
> Well, from my point of view, I don't think we need to target less than
> Java 1.3, but we can see what others think.
I also think 1.3 is reasonable.
Regards
Felix
Re: Telnet bundle
Posted by Rob Walker <ro...@ascert.com>.
Hi there Dieter - nice to see you're working in and around OSGi. I was
the original "bundler" of telnetd a few years back., you may remember we
swapped a couple of emails.
It was only ever a rapid hack - so be wonderful if you've a fuller
featured and better bundled approach.
>
> I would think that Java 1.3 would be fine as far as I am concerned.
> Others?
>
Yep - would agree. We hardly ever expect less than 1.4 these days in
libs and tools we look at.
Regards
-- Rob Walker
--
Ascert - Taking systems to the Edge
robw@ascert.com
+44 (0)20 7488 3470
www.ascert.com
Re: Telnet bundle
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Dieter Wimberger wrote:
>> Dieter Wimberger wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually I am the author of the project, so we can discuss it right
>>> here; and if you are interested, I guess we can also manage to
>>> release it under Apache 2 license (except the external SSH library,
>>> which is under a BSD license).
>>
>> Interesting. Didn't know you were here. :-)
>
> I am ;)
>
> I was already was giving Felix a hard time, because I was trying to
> port to felix and do configuration tasks with the webconsole.
Excellent. It is always good to give Felix [Meschberger] a hard time. ;-)
>> When you say "an OSGi port", what exactly do you mean?
>
> It's an OSGi bundle that carries a bundle descriptor and a metatype
> descriptor; it works as a ManagedServiceFactory to create instances of
> listeners (telnet and SSH) through the CM. It's also implementing a
> white board model design (I call it OSGi mediator) for adding shells
> through additional bundles (using the OSGi service registry).
Interesting. So, you would say that it definitely would be a replacement
for the telnetd bundle at oscar-osgi.sf.net then? Sounds like it.
Sounds good. Well, if you are planning on developing this on your end,
then it is not unreasonable to just let you go about your business and
do it (i.e., the bundle portion of your work doesn't have to be done
here). However, if there is sufficient interest in moving the bundle
aspects here as a subproject, then it could also be considered.
>>
>> Good question. I would certainly like to have a version that would
>> work with older/smaller Java platforms. However, we don't require
>> that all Felix subprojects work on Java platforms, it just makes them
>> more useful if they can be...
>>
> A question we should discuss is, if there are limits sought with
> regards to the runtime environment, because the codebase is Java 2 now
> (may be backportable, though).
>
> The language level I currently use is Java 1.3. In comparison to the
> older codebase, it may not run on very small embedded systems that are
> often Java 1 (if at all).
>
> I took this decision, because I needed SSH and the library I found
> (latest version is released under MIT license;
> http://www.lag.net/paramiko/java) needs 1.3.
I would think that Java 1.3 would be fine as far as I am concerned. Others?
> I guess it would be possible to get some things that are overhead out
> of the codebase and add them as extensions (e.g. Templates based on
> antlr and stringtemplates, Beanshell based shell, text editors etc.).
> It all depends on the requirements and the functionality you would
> like to see.
Well, from my point of view, I don't think we need to target less than
Java 1.3, but we can see what others think.
-> richard
>
> Regards,
> Dieter
>
Re: Telnet bundle
Posted by Dieter Wimberger <di...@wimpi.net>.
Richard,
> Dieter Wimberger wrote:
>>
>> Actually I am the author of the project, so we can discuss it right
>> here; and if you are interested, I guess we can also manage to
>> release it under Apache 2 license (except the external SSH library,
>> which is under a BSD license).
>
> Interesting. Didn't know you were here. :-)
I am ;)
I was already was giving Felix a hard time, because I was trying to
port to felix and do configuration tasks with the webconsole.
> When you say "an OSGi port", what exactly do you mean?
It's an OSGi bundle that carries a bundle descriptor and a metatype
descriptor; it works as a ManagedServiceFactory to create instances of
listeners (telnet and SSH) through the CM. It's also implementing a
white board model design (I call it OSGi mediator) for adding shells
through additional bundles (using the OSGi service registry).
>> A question we should discuss is, if there are limits sought with
>> regards to the runtime environment, because the codebase is Java 2
>> now (may be backportable, though).
>
> Good question. I would certainly like to have a version that would
> work with older/smaller Java platforms. However, we don't require
> that all Felix subprojects work on Java platforms, it just makes
> them more useful if they can be...
>
The language level I currently use is Java 1.3. In comparison to the
older codebase, it may not run on very small embedded systems that are
often Java 1 (if at all).
I took this decision, because I needed SSH and the library I found
(latest version is released under MIT license; http://www.lag.net/paramiko/java)
needs 1.3.
I guess it would be possible to get some things that are overhead out
of the codebase and add them as extensions (e.g. Templates based on
antlr and stringtemplates, Beanshell based shell, text editors etc.).
It all depends on the requirements and the functionality you would
like to see.
Regards,
Dieter
Re: Telnet bundle
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Dieter Wimberger wrote:
>
> Actually I am the author of the project, so we can discuss it right
> here; and if you are interested, I guess we can also manage to release
> it under Apache 2 license (except the external SSH library, which is
> under a BSD license).
Interesting. Didn't know you were here. :-)
> A first note I have is, that there is actually an OSGi port that I did
> myself, which is in the SVN repository on SourceForge:
> http://telnetd.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/telnetd/
When you say "an OSGi port", what exactly do you mean?
> A question we should discuss is, if there are limits sought with
> regards to the runtime environment, because the codebase is Java 2 now
> (may be backportable, though).
Good question. I would certainly like to have a version that would work
with older/smaller Java platforms. However, we don't require that all
Felix subprojects work on Java platforms, it just makes them more useful
if they can be...
-> richard
>
> Regards,
> Dieter
>
> On 23 Jun 2008, at 10:53, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I have been meaning to ask about this for a while (perhaps I already
>> did), is there any interest in bring the old telnet bundle into
>> Felix? I still use this bundle occasionally. It is dependent upon
>> telnetd, which is released under BSD (I see there is now telnetd2,
>> which is still under a BSD-like license). So, it seems do-able.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -> richard
>
Re: Telnet bundle
Posted by Dieter Wimberger <di...@wimpi.net>.
Actually I am the author of the project, so we can discuss it right
here; and if you are interested, I guess we can also manage to release
it under Apache 2 license (except the external SSH library, which is
under a BSD license).
A first note I have is, that there is actually an OSGi port that I did
myself, which is in the SVN repository on SourceForge:
http://telnetd.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/telnetd/
A question we should discuss is, if there are limits sought with
regards to the runtime environment, because the codebase is Java 2 now
(may be backportable, though).
Regards,
Dieter
On 23 Jun 2008, at 10:53, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have been meaning to ask about this for a while (perhaps I already
> did), is there any interest in bring the old telnet bundle into
> Felix? I still use this bundle occasionally. It is dependent upon
> telnetd, which is released under BSD (I see there is now telnetd2,
> which is still under a BSD-like license). So, it seems do-able.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -> richard