I see with Talend v6.4.1 that when I create a packaging (build the job) and that I select only the command interpreter "Unix" (and not Windows) to have only sh, a bat is still created . With the Talend version 5.6.2 the same manipulation created me only the sh. Has anyone noticed the same thing and do you have the reason for this "anomaly"? Thanks in advance.
Hello, I do not agree with you.
I posted this message to have a feedback on possible poeple who would have met the same thing.
It is a problem because if it is allowed to select the command interpreter of our choice it is good to be limited to one .sh, one .bat or both.
My development standards require me to limit myself to creating a shell.
Knowing that with Talend v5 the manipulation was correct, it is therefore in v6 a regression.
Thank you to the people who would remount me this same malfunction, and not judge the importance of my problem
Your developement standards disable for You add one more step in deployment script?
nothing personal - just a joke
just check most serious product:
Spark, Kafka, Cassandra - nobody from them - do not worry about this :-)
Thank you for your reply.
No, with Talend v5 when I build the job I select the command interpreter "Unix" only and I only get a shell.
I do not add an extra step in the deployment script to remove the .bat.
Talend proposes not to create the .bat in v5 but the functionality is not correct in Talend v6.4.1.
I do not want to add another step in my deployment, I wanted talend to do it as v5.
sure! You can want from Talend anything (especial if You on subscription version)
just register it here:
by the way look on number of opened issues
and undertand - where will be priority (especial if version is open source)
when with 6.3 it has error with MQ authorisation in ESB routes, and on 6.5.1 tJMSInput component do not work at all (i know how to fix, but still) - this is issues from my projects ... for my personal opinion much more critical and important, and if Talend give for Your issue more priority then for my .. I would be very serious disagree