Thanks Peter and Dmitry.

It looks like WebTerminal is just missing a backspace interpretation, client-side.

I can fix this problem once I have some free time, should be quick.

Thanks for reporting!

Thanks, it makes sense! I filed an issue for adding a hint, but it might be there for a while as the project isn't actively maintained today.

Hi Robert! WebTerminal's developer here.

In WebTerminal, there are some core blocker issues we didn't find a way to fix. They are not allowing to support some "traditional" debugging commands and some of those commands you've mentioned. The core problems are described in the issues, take a look. Mainly, it is because WebTerminal is implemented on top of WebSockets and uses "xecute" under the hood. I was asking about re-implementing the WebTerminal's core over telnet to overcome these issues, as then the standard terminal (telnet?) device will be used, eliminating these existing issues. So far, we just need to find an approach to execute arbitrary code in IRIS/Cache using the terminal device, which was not found yet.

Thanks! Considering the points others mention, I agree that projections should not be the way to install things but rather the acceptable exception as for WebTerminal and other complex packages.

True points. For sure, developers can customize it. I can do another version of WebTerminal specifically for ZPM, but it will involve additional coding and support:

1. A need to change how the self-update mechanism works or shut it down completely. Right now, the user gets a message on the UI, suggesting to update WebTerminal to the latest version. There's quite a lot of things happen under the hood.
2. Thus, create an additional pipeline (or split the codebase) for 2 WebTerminal versions: ZPM's one and a regular one with all the tests and so on.

I am wondering is it worth doing so in WebTerminal's perspective, or is it better to make WebTerminal a kind of an exception for ZPM. Because, still, inserting a couple of if (isZPMInstalled) { ... } else { ... } conditions to WebTerminal (even on front-end side) looks as anti-pattern to me.

Thanks! Exactly, I completely agree about simplicitytransparency, and installation standard. But see my answer to Sergey's answer - what to do with WebTerminal in particular?

1. Why would I need to rewrite the update mechanism I developed years ago (for example)?
2. Why would I need to maintain 2 code bases for ZPM & regular installations (or automate it in a quite crazy way, or just drop self-update feature when ZPM is detected)
3. Why all these changes to the source code are needed, after all, if it "just works" normally without ZPM complications (which is how the ObjectScript works)

I think this leads to either "make a package ZPM-compatible" or "make ZPM ObjectScript-compatible" discussion, isn't it?

Exactly not for installing purposes, you're right, I agree. But what do you think about the WebTerminal case in particular?

1. It's already developed and bound to projections: installation, its own update mechanism, etc.
2. It's also shipped outside of ZPM
3. It would work as usual if only ZPM supported projections

I see you're pointing out to "It might need to support Projections eventually because as you said it's a part of language" - that's what mostly my point is about. Why not just to allow them.


It's Nikita, the creator of WebTerminal.

There is no such thing implemented in WebTerminal. Because, still, all the commands are executed via xecute Cache command under the hood in a dedicated process.

However, if you really need this to be implemented - feel free to create an issue here.

Hope this helps!

Hello Arto!

Thank you for letting us know. I don’t think that WebTerminal could cause any damage to Studio/debugger. At least, you can try to completely remove WebTerminal by deleting WebTerminal classes (right click in Studio or select classes in the Management Portal -> Delete) and test it again. But anyway it has nothing in common with studio nor debugger.

Apart from that, what are you trying to debug? It might be you just misusing it, but I believe you did it before successfully.

Hope this helps!