Expose single command execute methods

[bostko]

@alasdairhodge , @aledsage Can you review it.
I think it is good to have such methods exposed.

I would even suggest to remove the compileScript but external projects are still dependent on it.

[aledsage]

Should we just overload the executePs method (with this one taking a string), rather than using a different name?

Same for executeCommand: I'd prefer consistency of naming. If we think that executeScript was not the best name, then we can look at changing that name.

[aledsage]

We should include some javadoc to say what this command does (it's unfortunate that there wasn't any javadoc on the original executePs(List) method).

[bostko]

@aledsage
What do you thing about renaming it only for Ps, executePs(String) and executePs(List<String>).
and keep executeCommand(String) and executeCommand(List) for the "Command Prompt" commands? Really we do notexecuteScript` no script was being composed here so I think it is wrong.

[neykov]

Makes sense, so +1. But let's keep old names as deprecated until Brooklyn catches up.

[bostko]

@aledsage can you review it again

[aledsage]

This kind of thing is implementation details rather than part of the contract. I'd therefore be very hesitant about including it in the javadoc.

[aledsage]

Can you explain the reason for the method renames (rather than just overloading the existing methods that have the same behaviour - e.g. executeScript(List) is exactly like this executeCommand(String) if you pass a list of size one).

[bostko]

Notice it depends on apache/incubator-brooklyn#950

[bostko]

Although I deprecated it. @neykov has several tests for executePs(List<String>)

[bostko]

@neykov can you review it

[neykov]

@bostko I think we should keep the (List<String>) methods and just add (String) overloads (just for sugaring over the list alternative). What's the reason for removing them?
Note that the winrm service doesn't support concatenated lines with \r\n nicely - it will return the output of the first command only (see disabled tests). That means that the executeCommand(String) is really just for a single line of batch script.
Another reason for keeping them is that we can optimize and open a single shell, then execute each command from the list, then close the shell (instead of opening a shell for each command as is currently which will probably break scripts depending on environment changes).

[bostko]

@neykov @aledsage

• I kept the old signatures.
• executeScript(List) is chaining commands with & now instead of "\r\n"

[neykov]

Wht not create analogous assertExecPs, instead of making compilePs public?

[aledsage]

+1 will change that in my branch of this.

[aledsage]

Closing - I've merged #11 which includes this commit.