Open snicoll opened 10 months ago
Ups, had a wrong commit reference, reopen.
We've been struggling with "initializr" for reasons you also mentioned and secondly as it's "typoed" it's hard to write. It's definitely going to get renamed/merged with something else. Naming is hard...
What I'd really like to see is having spring init <type>
command.
spring init catalog
spring init start
We're essentially getting something from a catalog or from an initializer.
spring boot start
where start
refers to start.spring.io Alternatively, spring boot start-spring-io
which is longer, though tab completion helps that, but is more descriptive.
FWIW, there may eventually be spring boot run
command that could create confusion with a start command, but since folks are used to the nomenclature start.spring.io
and mvn spring-boot:run
I hope the difference would be understood easily.
This suggestion would align with current naming and then fit naturally in the help command that groups together spring boot new
, spring boot add
and spring boot start
Thoughts?
In the current reference guide, the
spring boot new
command is described as:Then later on there is the "initializr" command that is described as:
I don't really expect those two commands to merge as they're operating with different assumptions. However, I expect the "Spring CLI" to present how to create a new project consistently. Right now the doc has one front and center section for the "boot new" command and what seems to be a generic command doc for the "initializr" one.
Somewhat related and this can be a separate issue if needed, the "initializr" term does not look a great candidate for this IMO. The project code name has a typo "on purpose" but I think it would be confusing for users that are not aware of that (and, frankly, I don't think they should). Using
init
would also be a natural way for users migrating from the Spring (Boot) CLI.In summary, the CLI offers two ways of creating a new project and no guidance of when to chose one over the other.